City Council - workshop

All right. Good evening and welcome back to a regular meeting of the Burbank City Council on Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. Today's study session item is a discussion of the draft Golden State specific plan policy document. We do have all of our council members. We're just waiting on them, but they will be here in a minute. And I welcome Daniel Villa, principal planner, to please present the report. Welcome.

I'm with the Could you all hear me? Good evening Mayor Takahashi, Vice Mayor Mullins, and council members. I'm Daniel Villa, Principal Planner with the Community Development Department and Product Manager for the Golden State Specific Plan. I'm joined by my colleagues Vanessa Quiroz and Marcos Fuentes, who have helped also in preparation of the plan. First, I just want to say thank you for your continued support and guidance throughout this process. We're excited to share that the draft Golden State Specific Plan document is now available for public review. Reaching this milestone has been a true team effort, and we look forward to continued engagement with the council, the community, our boards and commissions, and stakeholders as we gather feedback and further refine the plan. This evening we'll be providing an overview of the plan's organization, purpose, and key content, and we'll be available to hear your feedback in any direction you'd like us to consider as we continue community outreach and refinement of the plan before eventually bringing it back for a formal consideration. May I please have the, there it is, thank you. Before we dive into the plan itself, I'd like to start with a quick refresh on the plan area. The Golden Tee Pacific plan focuses on roughly 640 acres located in the northwestern portion of the city, adjacent to the Hollywood Burbank Airport. It is one of Burbank's most important industrial, hospitality, and transportation districts. Over the years, the area has evolved from a center for aerospace and industrial activity into a diverse district that now includes media production, aerospace, logistics, commercial businesses, and established residential neighborhoods. In fact, the plan area also contains seven housing element opportunity sites, reflecting the city's long-term strategy to accommodate future housing and locations with strong access to jobs and transit. The district also serves as a major gateway to the city, welcoming travelers through the Hollywood-Burbank Airport and also the areas to Metrolink and Amtrak stations. This slide here provides an overview of the planning process and where we are today. The project has been developed through a five-phase planning process that began back in 2016. Throughout each phase, community engagement has been a central part of the process with input from residents, businesses, property owners, stakeholders, boards, commissions, and the city council that have helped shape the plan. Today, we're pleased to have reached phase four with release of the draft specific plan document for public review. An important part of the project has been the extensive coordination required across multiple city departments and product teams, Because the city is preparing for specific plans concurrently, staff has worked closely to ensure that each plan is aligned and supported by coordinated long-term planning strategy. This has included ongoing collaboration with Burbank Water and Power and Public Works, who I see in the room tonight, thank you, to align future and land use planning with utility infrastructure planning, helping ensure that city services can support the growth anticipated under each plan. With that overview in mind, let's take a quick look at the draft plan itself. The draft plan is organized in eight chapters. Today I'll provide a high-level overview of the first seven, which make up most of the content. The eight chapters are glossary and definitions and terms chapter that identifies terms used throughout the document. Chapter one, it introduces a plan by explaining its purpose, how it relates to the city's existing planning documents, and it summarizes the community engagement process that shaped draft the plan. Chapter two, it provides historical and planning context. For example, the Golden State area has a rich industrial history and has long played an important role in Burbank's economy. For decades, it was home to Lockheed and the region's aerospace industry. Some of the historic images on the slide show some of that history. You can see the former Lockheed Air Terminal. Many of you may know this, but it was famously camouflaged during World War II. From the air, the facility was covered to resemble agricultural fields and residential neighborhoods in an effort to conceal it from potential enemy aircraft. Even though Lockheed departed in the 1990s, the industrial history is still an important part of the district today. Additionally, Chapter 2 also examines the area's existing conditions, opportunities, and constraints. Chapter three establishes a long-term vision for the district and the guiding principles that will shape its future. The vision reflects the ideas and values shared by community members, stakeholders, city boards and commissions, and the city council throughout the planning process. It describes what we hope the district will continue evolving towards in the coming decades. Supporting that vision are 10 guiding principles. They establish a foundation of the plan's goals, policies, and implementation strategies. Together, they provide a framework for guiding both public and private investment and ensuring that future growth reflects the community's shared vision for the district. Chapter 3 also includes a comprehensive set of goals and policies organized by topic, including land use, urban design, the public realm, mobility, economic development, sustainability, equity, and neighborhood compatibility. Together, these goals and policies establish the framework for implementing the plan's vision and guiding future public and private investment throughout the district. On the screen are a few examples of the plan's overarching goals, which support the city's general plan and housing element by encouraging new housing opportunities, strengthening the district's role as a major employment center, improving mobility, preserving the character of the district, and also fostering a fair and inclusive community. Chapter 3 also recognizes that the plan area is made up of multiple neighborhoods that are distinct from each other, each with different planning priorities. Rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach, the plan organizes a district into four sub-districts, each with its own vision. In purple, the North Station sub-district is envisioned as the plan's highest intensity transit-oriented area, accommodating future mixed-use development, housing, and employment around the rail stations. In orange, the South Station Sub-District is planned as a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use neighborhood that builds on its strong transportation connections. In red, the Empire neighborhood focuses on preserving its established residential character while adding neighborhood serving amenities. And finally in blue, the Golden State industry sub-district preserves and strengthens the district's industrial base while supporting existing businesses and future employment growth. Together these four sub-districts create a balanced framework that accommodates future growth while preserving the unique character of each part of that district. Chapter four focuses on the public realm and mobility improvements needed to support the district's long-term vision. A major focus of this chapter is transforming streets into public spaces that are comfortable, attractive, and functional for everyone by creating a safer, greener, and more connected environment that better accommodates people walking, biking, taking transit, and driving. Building on the area's strong transportation network, the plan achieves this through enhanced streetscapes, expanded landscaping and tree canopies, improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities, new open space opportunities, and also public realm standards that will guide future development throughout the district. To help illustrate the vision for the public realm, Chapter 4 also includes 10 conceptual street sections that illustrate the long-term vision for key corridors. On the screen are two examples, Thornton Avenue and Ontario Street. These illustrations compare existing conditions with the long-term vision for East Street and demonstrate how future streetscape improvements could transform the public realm. Depending on the corridor, these improvements include wider sidewalks, enhanced landscaping, and street trees, protected bicycle facilities, pedestrian amenities, and green screening, while continuing to accommodate all modes of travel. Chapter five establishes a private realm standards that will guide the future development throughout the district. It introduces five new zoning districts and objective development standards that implement the plan's vision. The plan includes two mixed-use zones, the Golden State mixed-use, shown in purple, which supports the highest-intensity transit-oriented development around the Metrolink stations and the future high-speed rail station, and the Golden State neighborhood zone, shown in pink. It provides opportunities for mixed-use and multifamily housing while being thoughtful with the transition to existing residential neighborhoods. The plan also modernizes the district's industrial areas through the introduction of two new zones. The Golden State Creative Zone, which supports creative industries, artists in production, light manufacturing, and commercial uses, while also introducing neighborhood serving uses such as restaurants and coffee shops to provide new amenities for employees, residents, and visitors. and also the Golden State Employment Zone, which continues to preserve the district's industrial base by accommodating a broad range of employment-generating uses, including advanced manufacturing, research and development, logistics, and office uses. Finally, the plan introduces the Golden State Residential Zone. It is similar to the city's existing R4 high-density residential zone. However, it is tailored specifically to the district through objective design standards that reinforce neighborhood character. Building on the zoning districts, Chapter 5 also establishes the objective development standards that will shape the design and quality of future development throughout the district. These standards address virtually every aspect of private development, including building form, building frontage, open space, and parking. On this slide, we've highlighted two examples. They include building form standards, which guide the scale, massing, and placement of buildings, to ensure new development fits within its surroundings while remaining feasible to construct, and building frontage standards, which focus on how buildings engage the street by requiring features such as entrances, transparent ground floors, and a pedestrian-oriented design that creates a more active, comfortable, and inviting walking environment. Together, these standards help ensure that the future development is compatible with surrounding neighborhoods while creating a more walkable and attractive Golden State District. This section establishes a maximum development intensity permitted throughout the district. For residential development, the plan establishes a maximum number of dwelling units allowed per acre. For commercial, office, and industrial development, it establishes a maximum floor area ratio, or FVR, allowed. Together, these standards provide clear, objective limits on future development while implementing the land use framework established by the general plan. Chapter 5 also includes development standards for open space and parking. The open space standard will establish requirements for outdoor gathering areas and amenities that introduce more greenery into the district and create private and common open spaces for residents and employees to gather, recreate, and enjoy. And the parking standards will address both vehicle and bicycle parking. The goal is to right-size parking requirements while improving how parking is integrated into the development through better building placement, landscaping, screening, and enhanced bicycle facilities, reducing the visual impact of parking and creating a more pedestrian-friendly environment. Chapter 6 focuses on the infrastructure needed to support the district's long-term growth, including public facilities and utility systems such as water, sewer, and power. Throughout the preparation of the plan, the product team has worked closely with Burbank Water and Power and Public Works to coordinate future land use planning with the city's long-term infrastructure planning efforts. This chapter is still being finalized and will summarize existing system capacity, identify any needed infrastructure improvements, and also ensure that the plan is supported by the city utility planning efforts. Chapter seven focuses on how the vision established in the plan will be carried forward and implemented over time. The chapter identifies the key regulatory actions, city programs, and public improvement projects needed to support the plan. It also identifies potential funding strategies and sources for improvements that may not be completed through private development alone. The Golden Teeth Pacific Plant is also undergoing environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as CEQA. As part of that process, the Environmental Impact Report is evaluating the growth forecast associated with a preferred project, as well as several other project alternatives. One of those alternatives is what we are calling the Sustainable Infrastructure Alternative, which was developed in close coordination with our utility partners to ensure future development remains within the capacity of existing in plant's utility infrastructure. We are currently finalizing the draft Environmental Impact Report and anticipate releasing it for public review this fall. Following the public review period, the EIR will be finalized before returning to the Planning Commission and City Council for consideration alongside the specific plan. To wrap things up, the draft specific plan is now available for public review and staff will continue engaging the community and stakeholders throughout early October as we continue refinement of the document. We anticipate releasing the draft DIR for public review this fall before again returning to the Planning Commission and City Council for formal consideration. In closing, the Golden Teeth Pacific Plan establishes a long-term vision for one of Burbank's most important districts, providing a framework to guide future housing, employment, mobility, public investment, and industrial preservation. As we've discussed, this is still a draft document, and we will continue refining it through community outreach and public review over the coming months. This evening, we're simply looking for any initial thoughts or feedback you may have. There will be additional opportunities for the City Council to review the plan and provide direction before returns for formal consideration. That concludes that presentation on the draft Golden State Specific Plan. The draft plan is again available online at www.goldenstatesp.com. We also have printed copies available at City Hall, the Planning Public Counter, or we will have printed copies tomorrow at City Hall, the Planning Public Counter, and our Burbank Public Libraries. We encourage everyone to review the plan and share their feedback throughout the public review process. Thank you for your time, and we're here to answer any questions.

Great. Thank you for the presentation. Council, do we have any questions for staff? You're still writing. Okay. Council Member Rosati, you want to go first?

Questions, comments, maybe? So do you see in this area, like, stores and shops with some of the mixed-use stuff so it could be more walkable?

Thank you for the question, Councilmember. So to your question, so just some background on the area. So as you all know, historically, it is an industrial area. There was a huge Lockheed presence. There was also a lot of other industrial-type uses. And right now, we're trying to catch up with zoning, with updating the zoning to reflect changes that are happening and what we want to see in the future. For example, Long Empire Avenue, I began here as a planner in 2010. And I always wondered, why don't we see more retail-type uses, more restaurant-type uses? And one of the reasons is because Empire Avenue, between Hollywood Way and Buena Vista, it's zoned industrial. So even though it functions as a corridor and it reaches a corridor, and it's next to residential, We just haven't resolved those areas like we're doing now to be able to allow for what you mentioned, some of those neighborhood serving uses, whether they'd be coffee shops, whether it be small retail, whether it be maybe even a grocery store on some key areas, maybe where the old fry site used to be. So the hope is to provide neighborhood serving uses. One of the things that we heard a lot from not only residents in the area, but also people who work there, they mentioned that a lot of times they find themselves having to drive to the Empire Center, having to drive to downtown Burbank, Magnolia Park, when a lot of times they just want to walk somewhere. They want to be able to go and walk to a coffee shop or a small little restaurant. And I'll quote them. They said you could only go to Panda Express so many times before you don't want to go there anymore.

Yeah. Just looking over the plan, I think, to me, the key in this specific area and neighborhoods is... Chapter 4, the streetscape, softening that area with larger sidewalks, tree canopy. I think a really good example is I was here for the FIFA fan zone, and then I was walking on First Street where the village... I'm sorry, where the First Street Village is with the large sidewalks. Then right across the street, you've got the collection with no sidewalk. And it's just such a different visual and just a different feel because you've got the benches and the trees right across the street. And then on the opposite side of the street, it's just... kind of ragtag. So I think item number four, chapter four, is probably the most important, especially for this neighborhood, for just softening and kind of make it feel neighborhood-like. But I appreciate the effort and the work. I know this one's probably a difficult one to tackle. but I think it's probably the one that's going to bear the most fruit because there's so many different things you can do in that location. And I think it would be a good entryway as far as cost goes, whether it be renting or selling, if somebody was going to build a project. So thank you.

Yes, Vice Mayor?

Let me finish writing here. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I'm just wondering, with the number of housing units that was determined that we're going to put up 4,000 units, how did we come up with that calculation? I mean, do we have, I know we have on the site now FRIES, we know how many units will be coming up, but the rest of the units, how did we figure out exactly 4,000 units?

Thank you for the question, Vice Mayor Mullins. So just quick background. So initially when we began working on the plan, we were looking at how we can rezone property to meet community expectations, what the community wanted, also balance that with the needs for more housing given city council's goal for 12,000 units by 2035, and also the housing limit needs. In working through that, I would say initially we were looking at a preferred project that looked at a higher unit count. We were initially looking at about 9,000 units in that area. And then in working with our utility partners, Burbank Water and Power, and also Public Works, specifically sewer, we realized that we needed to scale that down a little bit. And the main reason for that was to be able to stay within numbers that that could be met within our utility capacity right now. So in working with our utility partners, we were able to establish numbers not only for Golden State, but also for Media District and also for downtown Burbank that collectively stay within those numbers that allow us to build out this development over the next 10 years by 2035.

So it was just decided that we can put approximately 4,000 units but we have not identified exactly the specific locations or it doesn't mean that we do have current applications that perhaps gave us those numbers and that's why we included them in our specific plan.

Councilmember, I would add that it was a combination of both. We looked at a combination of what we already have in terms of on the pipeline, and also we looked at a combination of what we believe we can have in the future with rezoning of some property.

Okay. In regards to the industrial use in that area and converting them to perhaps more mixed flow and housing, WOULD YOU SAY THAT THIS CAN CAUSE AN INCREASE IN OUR EMPLOYMENT FROM INDUSTRIAL USE OR YOU WOULD SAY THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GENERATE MORE EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE AS COUNCILMEMBER RIZOTTI MENTIONED, THIS WILL ACTUALLY CREATE MORE BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES. I THINK IT'S THE CONCERN OF SAYING, WELL, IF YOU'RE GETTING RID OF SOME INDUSTRIAL USE IN THAT AREA, SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE EMPLOYEES OR IS THAT GOING TO REDUCE EMPLOYMENT IN THE AREA?

Yeah, so Vice Mayor, one of the things that I will say we've been doing as part of the planning document is when looking at the rich industrial history, we were aware that this is one of the few pockets in the city in which we allow industrial. I think the other pocket is over by the 5 and I think Alameda, by the Home Depot site. So knowing that it's one of the few pockets where we allow industrial, we were aiming to strike a balance between rezoning for housing and commercial areas where it makes sense while still preserving a lot of that industrial ability in areas where you're somewhat buffered from residential uses. And you'll notice because of that that we primarily identified most of the housing opportunity sites or areas for housing along some of the metro link stations. Having said that, to answer your question, Is there going to be an increase in unemployment? I would hope that this plan is successful and we see not only housing but also commercial activity that allows for additional jobs. Before we eventually come back with a final plan, we can dig into that a little bit more with our consultants to understand how maybe that's better in other cities. But at this point, we haven't flagged concerns regarding the matters you mentioned.

I don't know what Danny's saying. We're also looking at protecting existing uses out there. We know we have big employers out there. We want to protect them, so we're doing that as part of the plan. Also, we're introducing some new uses, some more flexible uses so we can attract new employers. And as Principal Planovia mentioned, we also want to introduce additional amenities in the area. So we want to make it a more comprehensive district where we bring in new uses as well as protect what's there.

Thank you. Because, you know, with the growth that we're anticipating and 4,000 new units, I'm hoping that also there will be an additional like 4,000 new jobs in the area, you know, coming from new businesses or expanding the current businesses that we have and not losing some of our employment in that area because of the specific plan. Because that area is very unique with all the businesses that we have and giving that's industrial. So there is a lot happening already in that area. So my ask would be that we really work hard to see how we can be creative to enhance that area with additional employment. and expansion of businesses or expansions of the current ones that we have right now. I do want to go back to the housing because that is something, obviously, a topic of discussion here at the council chamber in most of our meetings. and the need for workforce housing, the need for affordable housing. And I know with every project, there is a percentage that goes in a project where they have to comply with affordable housing. But we're looking also at workforce housing. In addition to that, in homeowners, we want to encourage also having either condominiums or having townhomes. It's not just rental in that area. I think it's very important that we explore that option as well. And that would give opportunity for our younger generation or opportunities for people that want to move to Burbank to actually have affordable housing in the sense of owning affordable housing. Do you foresee that this is something that we can actually work on in a specific plan to make it accessible, easier to own your own condo, your townhome? I know we can't have houses because we're already spread out that we can go up. So do you see that it's a possibility we can make that happen with the 4,000 within that number?

Yeah, Vice Mayor, definitely. And it's actually something that I think this plan will be very successful in doing. So I would say that a lot of times, this plan is doing two things, and likely more, but two come to mind. I would say the first thing it's doing is it's establishing objective development standards that will hopefully facilitate people building that type of product. In the past, we've had people who want to build townhome developments or other types of housing projects, and sometimes our standards were not easy to work with. So hopefully, should this plan go forward, be adopted in the future, developers will have something that's easier to work with, and we'll also establish the expectations of the council and the community as to what we want to see. And I would say, secondly, one of the implementation programs in the plan is for the city to prepare a community benefits program. that is going to incentivize things like that, amongst other things. For example, some of the things that that program may do is identify to developers, if you provide wholesale housing, if you provide affordable housing, if you provide workforce housing, these are some of the benefits that you get. and use our program instead of other state programs because our program is not only faster and not only more efficient, but also you're gonna provide us what we need and what we're asking for. And here are your objective standards and make it very easy for you to do that. So the hope is that through this plan we're able to facilitate that and to the question, I'll share this, we've actually over the past couple months have received interest from developers at the old logic site for potential town homes. They haven't submitted anything, but there's discussion that we've had with the development community about seeing town homes in this area, and we believe if we make it easier through a very well thought out process, we may see more of that.

I am so pleased to hear you say if we make it easier, not to violate our policies and codes, but it's in our hands to Exactly provide the incentives. And if you have a developer who wants to put 100 units in the rental, but one that wants to put workforce or, you know, own condominiums or townhomes, I prefer personally that we focus on that so we allow people to own properties in the city of Burbank because that's the need of what we hear from the residents. They really are desperate to have something they can own here in the city of Burbank. One last question that I have and that relates to the actual neighborhood protection, and I know you touched on it in your presentation, but given that amount of residential units that will be up, that could cause also an extreme concern for the residents in that area, given that the parking, the impact on the parking, impact on traffic, and so what is that mean in your mind or in your profession, how would you provide that protection to the neighborhood who are people gonna be moving and living next to each other and making sure that we have an access parking and access traffic flow that is not causing jam in that area?

Vice Mayor, we actually have Marcos Fuentes from our transportation division here tonight who is actually working on a neighborhood protection plan for Golden State, and it's running parallel to the plan. He can speak more on it.

Thank you for the question, Vice Mayor Mullins. Marcos Fuentes, Senior Transportation Planner with Community Development Department. As my colleague Daniel Villa mentioned, the Golden State specific plan has an action item which is to develop a neighborhood protection plan for this neighborhood in order to both protect the neighborhood and also the livability and character of the residential areas. We are currently developing that plan. We're in the early stages of looking at collecting data looking at the existing conditions. And from that, we'll develop a tailored toolkit of treatment plans, similar to what's been done in other parts of the city, like most recently in Rancho Providencia, for example. And so that toolkit could include things like cut-through traffic mitigation measures, like speed humps, cul-de-sacs, etc., all the way to parking regulations, so time restrictions, permit parkings, etc.,

Thank you.

Next up, Council Member Perez.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I think the first thing, I'm going to do a little bit of comments slash questions. I do want to agree with my colleague on the mixed use piece and specifically be so great to see supermarkets or some form of fresh food for folks. The Panda Express comment is not lost on me and I think there are very few very few Stores and locations available for fresh food up in that specific area and we don't want to see a food desert kind of continue up there So anything we can do to incentivize that I know you're limited and specifically who applies and what goes in there But the same way we look at ways to incentivize For sale housing. I would really appreciate incentivizing fresh food options for folks The other thing that caught my attention specifically in this area is it looks like half of the hotels in this area have been done through a development agreement. Have we looked at the possibility of approving all of our hotels through a development agreement in this specific plan?

Is it working? Good evening, Council. Vanessa Guido, Senior Planner. I'm helping Danny with the GSSP plan. Currently, the GSSP is proposing hotels under a CEP process. So it's still a discretionary process where the public, it goes before the Planning Commission, the public can provide input and can be appealed to the City Council. So that's the consideration that we propose when there's a specific plan for this particular use.

And have we looked at the possibility of the development agreement just because it looks like that might be some benefit for us? Yeah.

Good afternoon. Fred Ramirez, Assistant Director. We did look at development agreements and planned developments. However, typically that process is used when you don't actually have a designated use or a conditionally permitted use. And by applying the conditional use permit process throughout, it actually provides a more direct and transparent process for the review of hotels. And if someone feels aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission, it can appeal it to the council so the council could have ultimate decision making power in that instance, but the CUP process would analyze the project, determine its impacts to the site and adjacent uses, and as you've seen in the prior specific plans, we're using the same approach as far as the conditional use permit process to consider all hotels.

Do a follow-up? Go for it. I saw your, go for it.

No, I just wanted to confirm because I think I'm not sure if it was Mr. Ramirez or you said it. It's still a CUP, still a way for council to eventually get involved if in the event it appeals, it comes to us if it's denied by the planning board. So we still have the ultimate decision to make on the project.

Yeah, I guess it's a statement, but so I'll confirm what you're noting. Yeah, the process would create an opportunity for public input. It's a discretionary process. The Planning Commission could deny the project. It could approve it if someone felt aggrieved by the decision of the Commission in either scenario. It could be appealed to the Council, and the Council would ultimately have final decision-making ability on the hotel. The difference between that process which is clearly there's a set of findings that need to be made, there's development standards that need to be established. In the past when we didn't have that and the council wanted to introduce a new use in a particular zone the plan development was kind of like the alternative when we explicitly did not have uses that fit within specific land use categories or where there was a hybrid development that was being submitted like in the case of mixed use projects in the past. But now that we've established mixed use standards or standards for residential, we have established standards so we wouldn't be doing planned developments anymore. We'd be applying those standards. In a similar fashion, the CUP process is what we're proposing to council, ultimate decision is yours. But in all three specific plans is to establish the CUP process as the vehicle to consider hotels.

And Madam Mayor, if I may ask, so are you asking for us to give you directions so the CUP is acceptable or that's something you already have in place?

Well, the specific plans are ultimately for you to decide, you know, if you want to make changes. If you want to consider alternatives, that's well within your purview. At this point, what's proposed, it's listed as a conditional use permit. And if you were to look at our zoning code currently, there are 17 zones where hotels are actually allowed either by permitted right or a conditional use permit. In some instances, if they're residentially adjacent, it's by a conditional use permit. So this approach... is not foreign, it's actually consistent with what's happened previously. However, as you've mentioned, there have been planned developments that have been done in the past, but there is an established and a context of history in the zoning code that actually uses a CUP process to look at hotels. So we're just saying continue that effort going forward in all three specific plans when you consider them.

It's OK. Yeah, OK, Council Member Anthony.

Normally, I'd be fine with a CUP process. It's just with this specific plan, there's still a lot of things up in the air. We don't know what high speed rail is going to look like. the folks who are going to be purchasing and building retail don't know what the airport's going to look like. Because it's such a big transit rich hub, you got two metro link stations, potentially high-speed rail, full airport. I personally would like to start with a PD just on the books, and then as time goes by, we can roll back to a CUP. What I don't want to happen is us start to go through this project, get it done 2026, 2027, And then a bunch of folks see the PD put in applications for retail and housing, industrial. And then a few hotels get approved. And then the high-speed rail comes in. And then the Olympics come through the airport. And then people are like, oh, I know what I really want to build. I know what I really want to do. So when this comes back, I'd like to see an option to start with a PD and just roll back from there after a year or two and see where it's at. That's what I think could work.

I would also like to see an option and I think for me it comes from seeing what Glendale is doing and and for me It's just about this specific plan where they have a lot of hotels in these transit areas So I'd like to see the option because that's where I heard about it Glendale has a development agreement for their hotels and it's working out for them so I'd love to at least take a look at the option and

So we're talking about this particular topic. It sounds like having the options there and whatever's appropriate for that particular development maybe. Maybe the developer would like to do a CPU versus a DA. I don't know, are you asking that the DA be offered first and the CPU is the backup? Or that this is an option that's on the menu? Or what are you thinking?

So I would say, front facing, it should be a development agreement. And if there's criteria to be met, if they're engaging with staff, because a development agreement is usually a longer process. But if they're walking in with something that staff wants, there should be an option for them to fast track and possibly even come back to us with the CUP. But that, I think, gets a little bit more complicated. What I'd like to see is us in this area just start with the development agreement for all hotels. Because of what we're seeing down the line, we don't know what the Olympics is going to do to this airport. We don't know when high-speed rail is going to happen. We don't know. Or if. Or if. So my issue is, if we just go with the CUP, a hotel developer will come through and talk to planning board. And planning board is going to be able to look at the ups and downs of it and say, well, we don't know about high speed rail. We don't know what's happening. But on its merits, it looks good. And then they move forward. versus a development agreement where they're talking with staff about, well, what do you hear from high speed rail? What do you hear from the airport? What are council's long term goals for the Metrolink station and the housing? So it is a little bit more cumbersome, I agree. But just starting out with this brand new Golden State specific plan, I think we start with the planned developments for hotels. And then two years down the line, three years down the line, it's 2029, 2030. We've seen what the airport is doing. We figure out what the hell's going on with high-speed rail. And then we're like, okay, now we know what we're doing. We have the setup. We can roll back to a CUP, and then that will be our limit. That's just what I think.

And to clarify for me, I'd like to at least see staff come back with that, because what I saw in Glendale was them do that, and it gave them more control, more of that local control. So I'd like to see what that looks like written in in the plan for us because we haven't even looked at it. I agree.

I'd like to see a deeper dive on both. I don't want to do anything that's going to not incentivize, and that could happen with the PD, where we don't incentivize what we're trying to do. So I do think we should do a deeper dive. As Mr. Ramirez says, CUP is more transparent to the developer than the add-ons when you get with the development agreement. So it's worth looking at and weighing our options. In this climate right now, we should do whatever is best to incentivize the process.

Yes, and I agree with everyone, but I also want to see what would be the quickest, fastest way for a developer to come in, work with staff, but also in the same time staff is in control of with our own local ordinance, with our own local specific plan, without having to go back and spend many hours in trying to negotiate with the developer, because we're doing all this work in preparation for someone to come in, and everything will be obvious in front of them what can and cannot be done. So I'm open to either one, whatever I think would be the most effective, efficient way to get those developers to start on the projects and have hotels or whatever different projects. And I see the city manager, before I go on and on, he really wants to jump in and say something. So I'm going to stop here.

If I could, Madam Mayor. So good discussion. Staff will come back with pros and cons for each of those two options. What we are mindful is when we do goal setting and things like that, staff, council tells staff about streamlining processes permit. making a business development friendly environment, and then balancing that with protecting neighborhoods and things like that. So for us, still having that discretionary review of the CUP, that is why we're leaving that in, that's why we're recommending that. You still have that discretionary appeal ability, and that's why we're pushing that through. We are worried that we put a very long-term PDDA process in place that may actually discourage that hotel development. So we're kind of worried about that, and we're also trying to meeting the goals of city council as far as streamlining the permit process, which we get told about a lot. So we will bring back the pros and cons, and you guys can hash it out when we come back and adopt this plan.

If I could ask, can we look at the city of Glendale too and what they have in place just to like study that? Because I would love to see that personally.

I think there's a couple other cities as well that have that as well. So maybe we can do, not a lot. I can see the city manager going, no, look at all these cities. But it'd be just an understanding of briefly of why they did it the way they did recently.

And also, is it working better for them versus a CUP?

Yeah, just a highlight if it's working or not. Yeah. Anything else? Yes, Council Member Anthony.

I wanted to follow up on something that the Vice Mayor was talking about, incentivizing the construction of for sale. We have a 15% affordable housing requirement on all multifamily in the city? What is the trigger for that 15%? That's under the general plan, right?

Councilmember Anthony, so right now in our Birmingham Municipal Code, we have an inclusionary housing ordinance that establishes a percentage of 10% low-income, 5% very low-income for housing products that are five units or more.

And that's rentals or for sale?

Correct. The requirements are a little bit different for for sale, but yes, there's requirements for both.

Okay, so let me ask you this. When we're talking about incentives for for sale and condos and townhomes, we mentioned earlier violating city ordinance, but we set the city ordinance. Is there a way for us to reduce that number for folks who come in who want to do all for sale projects? Has that ever been discussed, especially in a location where historically we have not had much housing construction?

Councilmember Anthony, right now the city is currently working on our inclusionary housing ordinance. It's something that we're currently working through. We're going to have outreach for. We'll come before the council via study session in the coming months. And as part of that process, we are looking at what percentages of affordability make sense. And we can definitely look at and have conversations about whether we want to try to find ways of incentivizing forest cell housing through that tool that we have. So we have thought about it and can continue that discussion.

And then on the flip side, have we looked at baking into our code an additional density bonus internally for developers that want to come in and do 100 percent for sale. Because I think reducing the inclusionary requirement and increasing a density bonus, you get on both ends a real good appetite for a developer to come in, do a bunch of townhomes or do a bunch of condos versus rental after rental after rental. In the long term, it may seem like we're not tackling affordable housing in the short term, but in the long term, as you get more and more people buying and investing and building home equity in Burbank, that has repercussions far into the future more than simply getting five or six units at affordable housing.

Council member, so the short answer is yes. So as part of the housing element that the city council adopted back in 2022, at that point in time, there was an implementation program that asked that the city look at a community benefits program that amongst other things does just what you mentioned. Can we find ways to work with developers, incentivize developers to provide more housing variety of what we're looking for, whether it be larger unit sizes, whether it be more affordable housing, whether it be to what you're mentioning, four-cell housing. So we're actively working on that and are also going to come in the coming months via study session to you all, before you all, to be able to talk about that and how we can potentially leverage that tool to get more four-cell housing.

Okay. Because I'd like to see some of those options. All right. Thank you.

Great. I'll try to be quick, because I know we're getting close to the hour. Thank you for the presentation. And again, to staff, another well-done specific plan draft. So I have a couple questions also about the planned developments that are already on the map, that are already there. And on the dwelling units per acre slide, I think it's slide 14, it says that the dwelling units per acre is per planned development as it stands. And one of the planned development is the current, which will soon to be the old airport. Is that correct? Am I reading this correctly on the map? The terminal, or is that the RITC? On the south side near the south Metrolink station, there's a planned development. I'm not sure how far up that goes, but is any of that part going to be the old airport?

Mayor, so you are correct in saying that a lot of that is the current RITC, which is currently, I don't know the plan development number, but it is down under a plan development. The reason we left plan developments as plan developments and we did not add FBR density is because those plan developments actually establish development regulations for what could be built on that site. It is something that if the council wants us to, we can look into further and potentially provide other options should the planned development in the future want to be revisited for whatever reason.

Yeah. The reason why I ask is because, not the Ritzy part, but the areas north of the Ritzy are going to be potentially, I think, demolished, right? Are going to be repurposed when the new airport is, or the old airport is closed? Or is this too far south from that area?

This is a little bit further south.

Got it. OK. And then my second question is, is the 4,000 units number that you gave the vice mayor, does that include the estimates of these planned developments? Or is that not included?

So those numbers would be separate from that.

Perfect. OK, great. And then I have a couple questions about the mobility plan and the street design concept. And I just bring this up every time this area of town comes up, that getting past the railroad on a bike, you know what I'm going to say, getting past the railroad on a bike is not safe and not easy. And so just putting it out there again to find a safe way to get bikes from the south to north side of the railroad tracks without having to go very, very far out and around. As you know, the Hollywood Way is very dangerous that way. You have to ride in the street to do that. And then I wanted to piggyback also on what Councilmember Rosati said about the front-facing of how the streets look. In particular, a lot of folks driving in and out of the airport from both exits. Well, that would be the North Airport now, so it would just be that one. We'll be driving down that street, and that's the first impression they have of our city when they come in. So I think that that's something to consider, too, that as we're working through the different negotiations with the developers that we remember that whatever they put there is what the folks get impression with our city. So we need to make it look nice. So, but thank you for that. Okay, that's all I've got. Any more questions or comments? No, well done. Thank you again for all your hard work. When will this be coming back to council again?

So we're aiming end of the year, early next year. So December, January.

Okay, great. Great, thank you so much. So we are at the hour, but if it's okay to take a few minutes, two minute break, just enough for a restroom. Okay, five. All right, five minute break being requested, five minute break. And I will then gavel down. All right, see you in five.