Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Good evening and welcome to the Monday, January 12th, 2026 regular meeting of the city of Burbank. Planning Commission. Before we begin our meeting, there will be one general period of public comment tonight during oral communications. Persons speaking during the general public comment period may provide the planning commission oral communication on any matter concerning city business. Members of the public may comment in person or by telephone during the general public hearing public comment periods. If you would like to participate in the public comment period by making an in-person comment, please complete a completed speaker card to planning staff. If you would like to participate in the public comment period by telephone, please call 818-238-3335. We will announce when the phone lines are open. Please join me for a moment of reflection. This moment is intended to begin our meeting with a positive and collective support for our beloved community. The planning commission welcomes everyone joining us this evening. We encourage you to take a moment to reflect on our community and the work we will be doing tonight.

Although each of us has our own unique reasons for being here, we are united in our passion for our wonderful city. As we pause, let us consider our own individual contributions, what they mean to those around us. Let us find solace in knowing that by working together with a shared spirit of community and partnership, we will always act responsibly for the betterment of Burbank. Will everyone please join us in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Madame K, Madame Clerk, may we have a roll call, please? Chair Wick, present. Vice Chair Safarian is absent. Commissioner Bennett here. Commissioner Mendes here and Commissioner Van Gorder here. Do we have any announcements from city staff this evening? Uh, no new announcements.

Great. Now is the time for oral communications from the public. Any person speaking during the period may address the commission on any matter concerning city business. Each commission each person may address the planning commission for a maximum time of 3 minutes. For members of the public who wish to comment in person, please complete a completed speaker card to planning division. For members of the public that wish to comment by telephone, please call 818-2383335 to address the planning commission. Callers will be placed in a queue until all inerson comments have been received. The phone lines are now open. Please bear with us as it may take a couple of minutes for the first callers to get through on the line. For callers, please remember to lower the volume on your TV or computer and take your phone off speaker to when you deliver public comment. Madame Clerk, do we have any speakers here tonight or callers on the line?

I have no speakers or callers. Okay. And just for everyone in the audience, um because I know that this is sometimes confusing. There will be a period of public comment on the hearing item tonight. This is for general public comment. So, I just want everybody to know that. Um no callers on the line. Okay. No callers are speaking.

All right. We'll give it a couple minutes. Nothing. All right. There being no further public comment, I now declare the public comment period closed. There was one public hearing item on tonight's agenda. Now is the time and place for the public hearing of project number 25-00002550, a continuation of the December 8th, 2025 planning commission public hearing item, a request for an appeal of the city of Burbank community development director's decision to approve as conditioned a development review and density bonus application that allows for the construction of an 11-unit residential development at 257 West Lynen venue and the planning commission's consideration of the underlying project. The item was continued from the December 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting to allow sufficient time for city staff, the commissioners, and the republic or and the public to review additional materials submitted by the appellent minutes before the hearing began. Under Burbank Municipal Code sections 10-1-1907.1 and 17.2, to this hearing is an independent re-examination of the underlying project application. At the end of this hearing, the planning commission will deliberate and take one of the following actions. Uphold and affirm the director's original decision or reverse the original decision and issue a new decision. Before we begin, do any planning commissioners have any legal, financial, or any other conflict of interest regarding this hearing?

No. No. No. Have any planning commissioners had any communications, including written or oral, with any person about this project? No. No. No. No. Mr. Ramirez, have the notices as required by law been given? Uh, yes, they have. Are there any written communications on this matter? Uh, there are. I believe those have been forwarded to the commission.

Great. Thank you very much. Since the representative of the community development department and the appellant provided their presentations on December 8th, 2025, the continuation of the public item will begin with public comment. Following public comment, rebuttal will be allowed from city staff and the appellant. The item will then conclude with commission questions and deliberation. We will now open the meeting to hear from any persons who wish to speak on the matter. Each person may address the planning commission for a maximum time of 3 minutes. For members of the public who wish to comment in person, please present a completed speaker card to planning staff if you wish to speak. For members of the public that wish to comment by telephone, please call 818-2383335 to address the planning commission. Callers have been placed in a queue until all inerson comments have been received. The phone lines are now open. Please bear with us as it may take a couple of minutes for the first callers to get through the line. For callers, please remember to lower the volume on your TV or computer and take your phone off speaker when you deliver public comment. Madam clerk, do we have any speakers here tonight or callers on the line for public comment?

Great. All right. Thank you so much. And just as a reminder, everyone gets three minutes. And so at three minutes, um, we're going to kindly ask you to wrap up. The first speaker is Molly Augustus. You show up early. I know. This is my fault for showing up early.

I am Molly Augustus and I live at 243 West Lyndon. My husband and I have lived there for over 40 years. We made a good decision when we moved to Burbank. And in that time, we have seen changes on the block. And one of the important ones is less and less parking. After 4:00, it's difficult to find parking. After 5:00, it's nearly impossible. And after 6:00, it is impossible to find parking on that street. There are 54 parking spots on that short block. And as a result, uh cars park in the alley behind Lynden overnight. They park um uh where the fire hydrant is consistently. It there's not a week that goes by that someone's not parked in front of the fire hydrant. and they park at the end of the street in the red marked portion. Um it's it's dangerous. Uh the residents don't even have enough parking on that street and regardless of whatever data they throw at you, come and look just come and look at that little street and and how impacted um the parking is and adding 11 units along with their vehicles. Even if there is a parking spot for 11 vehicles in that unit, it it would make parking all the worse. Uh zero space, a 10,400 ft uh building is too big for that lot. There's nothing on that street that's comparable to a building that size. Um and the number of residents in a building that size would result in more Amazon trucks, more UPS deliveries, more Uber drivers, more food deliveries. And as it is, uh, again, not a week goes by that that driveways are not blocked with all of that going on on that little street. Um, the street can barely contain the current population. It's a short, very narrow dead-end street. And

it's a small street really when you look at it in terms of other streets in Burbank. It's just a little street. Um there has been new construction within within the past 10 years and it is already severely impacted. We cannot support more people, more cars. We have no parking. We have no space. There is a place in Burbank for a building of this size and it is not on this small street. An 11 unit huge apartment complex is too big. It's too much for that street. Please don't allow greed, and this is greed, to come in and change the culture and the character of that little block on West Lyndon. A 10,400T building is not appropriate. It's irresponsible and it's unsafe for that little small street. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Leonardo Damasi. Uh good afternoon. Uh as I as I reiterated from uh last month, the parking uh the whole situation in that street, the the amount of traffic that goes in and out is unbelievable. This month, we actually all decided to kind of look into and see what it was really like. There is not an hour that doesn't go by where there's at least two maybe even three up to six uh delivery trucks that's on top of the cars when on trash day. There's nowhere to put the trash cans. So, they're all in the middle of the street. So, you have to you have to dodge uh the trash cans in order to get to your street. Our house is at the very end on on 261 Lyndon on that culdeac. All the delivery drivers, they'll just park their car there. They'll go and do the things. Sometimes we have to wait half an hour to find whoever's parked the car because they've parked in front of the the driveway. This is our house. This is we, you know, we're paying taxes and everything. And we are treated like we're third third uh third class citizens. Everybody else uh you can go by there. I had to ask you guys just to go there, spend one hour, park your car, and take a look. I don't did any of you even try doing that? That place is a zoo. There's there there's an apartment building that was built further up the street that include that all send the influx of half a dozen cars there. You put 11 units in there. Even if you have 11 parking spots for the units, they're going to have friends. They're going to have family and all. Right now, you have people parking on the in the red. they park in and they'll they'll actually

block the driveways right now. During the during this last month, it it was just it was just impossible. There were several times that we actually had to go and park on Victory Boulevard when we had to get togethers and have one person come and pick people up because there is no parking. There is there's absolutely no parking. If there is an emergency, the way people like the delivery people and everybody else parks their cars and there's an emergency that the fire department has to get in there or or an ambulance has to Good luck. Good. It's all I can say. Good luck. Because I we we had two incidences last week or last month that we had someone just park a huge uh a huge truck in front of the of the driveway. We couldn't get in and out, so we had to scramble to park. And these people were almost an hour uh doing a delivery or doing some work at someone else's when they came out. We told them, "Do you don't you see the rent?" Oh, so it's no it's no big deal. That's that's easy for them to say because they don't live there. If it was somebody at my house that needed emergency services and somebody gave me that, they'd end up dead. So please consider really that you have to be realistic. As she said before, greed cannot take presidents over the community. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Camila De Massie.

Howdy. Uh again, nice to see you guys again after a month. Um I I I just want to reiterate what happened on Friday. A delivery truck actually came and blocked our entire driveway at 266 West Lynon. Somebody called the parking code enforcement. The trash truck was trying to come. It became a jamble. I had to move my car from my driveway just so the trash could actually come and he had to come back and pick up my actual trash. This is how clogged it is. There's no infrastructure. I mean, it's a small culde-sac. and the neighbor was honking their car and everything. Um, I want to thank Daniel Villa for bringing the flyers. I dropped him off personally with him for a little bit and then he had to head out. I I personally handed out the flyers and everything. I got to talk to a lot of neighbors and I'm really glad cuz we're all united. A lot of them couldn't make it because of work conflicts and everything. Um, and I'm so happy because we really feel united. I I got to I mean we have a whole new set of friends and everything here because we're all united in this cause. We really don't understand like how it's even plausible a 75 unit yet load 11 unit. I mean it's a small square footage lot. I mean it's just a little over 10,000 square feet. How how do you imagine? I mean that's why we moved to Burbank. That's why I moved back to Burbank. Born and raised and everything. Like I said last month, I want to start a family here. I want to live there forever. I love everything. My grandpa back in the 80s where the Morrison is right now, right on Magnolia, had his Italian restaurant. He immigrated here from Italy and everything. We had our restaurant there and everything. I own a property two blocks away that I'm getting permits for and everything. Doing everything the right way, doing walking around the community, making

sure everything goes. I mean, it I can't even fathom the fact that you would put an 11 unit building there. I mean, it's just so irresponsible. There's not enough infrastructure. And that's all I'm telling you. There's just not enough infrastructure. I I I I don't know how the first responders or or fire trucks or ambulance, they get stuck there. I mean, I I literally they literally cannot move around there. I mean, it's we're on a culde-sac. It's a small block. I mean, it's not We We're cut off by the wash. There's no way. You got a small alley that's so condensed. I mean, it's there's no there's no room unless we could maybe turn the wash into a big parking lot or something. I I I'm not I'm just not sure. I I'm not sure where we're going to put all these cars. Like we said, the delivery trucks, uh just the the fire engines, um even finding parking is a total luxury. We literally have to go park in Allen. We literally have to go park on Victory. Like I said, from Al now from Allen all the way to Alama from 3:00 to 5, you can't even park there. I mean, it's it's just it's just ridiculous. We're a working-class neighborhood. And let's just I mean, it's just

Thank you guys. Thank you guys. Thank you. Our next speaker is Eladio. Thanks.

Hi. Hello. Uh, I'm very glad to be here. I live on Lyndon as well, right at the end of the street at the culde-sac. And I'm here again to please bargain with you that we cannot have another set of apartments on this street. It is just overrun. We've had tagging issues, gang related issues. I've had uh gang members uh tag up the side of my house and try to hop over my fence to the point where we called the police and they got arrested. It was chaotic. And my little sister lives with me. I'm trying to raise a family. It's just and it Burbank is a fantastic neighborhood. Burbank is such a wellrespected, beautiful neighborhood and we work hard to be here. We love to be here. There is again not enough infrastructure. There's no parking. There's no way that we can survive on this. Uh we park two to three streets away. And keep in mind on victory at night with those gang members around as a woman. It's not safe. It's it's not right. And I just I would really want to push for a familyfriendly street as Burbank once was. And I would like that to be that way again. I just please beg there. 11 units, 75 units, even four units. It's not sustainable. I've seen the property. I live next door to the property. My backyard is condensed with their backyard. There's no way that it can fit even four units. I promise you that. It's just very condensed. It's very mismanaged. I didn't even get a email. I didn't get a poster. I didn't get anything about this meeting unless we called the city pushing them for it. So, I'm very grateful that the receptionist

answered and I just really want a family-friendly community in Burbank. We work very hard to be in a great sustainable beautiful neighborhood and I want to keep it that way. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Megan. Hello. Thank you. Um I'm Megan and I also live on Lind um on Lyndon. I want to express my concern about the proposed apartment development and how it will impact the safety and quality of the life in our neighborhood. Parking here is already beyond capacity. As we've already talked about, um I often have to park up to three blocks away. I'm not getting off until 10 p.m. I'm a residential counselor. I work with trauma. I see firsthand what trauma looks like. I'm dealing with trauma when I'm walking home at night getting harassed by people telling me extremely vulgar things. I can't walk home safely. Um, emergency access is already strained. Fire trucks and ambulances struggle to get down our narrow, fully parked streets. Adding dense housing without adequate on-site parking will only slow the emergency response and endanger lives. This product um this project also disrupts suburban character that Burbank is meant to have. Lyndon isn't designed for highdensity buildings. Our community works because it's stable, family orientated, and connected. Adding more units without addressing this pushes out long-term residents and erodess that sense of community. The impact on daily life will be significant. Many Burbank residents work night shifts, healthcare workers, first responders, and service employees. Daytime construction brings noise, blocked streets, and dust that will make it almost impossible for them to get rest or safely access their homes. This is a project that would bring years of construction. Um, there's environmental concerns as well. Increased density without green space or permeable grounds to contribute to heat, affects drainage near the wash, pressures wildlife, and worsens already overloaded parking conditions. If the

city can't provide safe designated parking, such as parking on the wash, the burden entirely falls on residents. Lastly, this project could threaten my own housing stability. My landlord already wants to move and sell the property if this happens. I moved here from Montana. California saved my life. And now I'm looking at that getting thrown away. Um, and I just ask that the city will prioritize the safety, stability, and well-being of your new residents. I love being here and I don't want to be driven out. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker is Christina Richardson. Christina Richardson.

Kristen Richardson. Sorry.

So yeah, I also live on Lyndon. I got a truck with eight foot bed. Can't find parking to save my life. I spend sometimes 30 minutes just circling the streets trying to find one place to park my truck. It's ridiculous. I pay a lot of rent to live here. Supposed to be a suburban neighborhood. They're going to build more apartments right next to it. I work night shifts. I'm the EMT and I get barely any sleep as it is. They're banging on the damn walls and digging all day. I ain't gonna get no sleep. And as they said before with the ambulance, as someone that drives one, yeah, you can't get around that. You just can't. You got forever and it takes forever and there's nowhere to park. I had to move people's trash cans to park my my vehicle all the time. It's a bit It's getting ridiculous already. And then we're talking 11 more people and I lived in other apartments. They're going to do exactly that where they'll save their parking for their family and then they'll park on the street and they'll park their extra cars on the street and then if they have another it's just it gets ridiculous. We all know where to go. I don't be out price to this area either, you know. I don't that's really all I got. But thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Hernandez. He's asking me to translate. Sure, of course.

Uh, good night to everyone and everyone. My his his problem is even worse than everyone else's that's been talking. his his wife is blind and she can't see and she's disabled. When the ambulances come over, there's no parking or anything. They can't get in.

They have to come in forward and reverse straight back because you can't make a roundabout. Two big cars cannot like um go parallel. the person that wants to make the apartments there to tear down the house. These are the blueprints. If he wants to make something like this, this is what he wants to bring to our community. to make this in your house.

If it's a businessman, then let him do it. So, make 75 or more if he wants. I bet he has a big house and he could do it there and then he doesn't have to go to a different city and then he could just charge. They don't see they don't see the damage that they're doing to the community. They just want to make business to do it at his house. Why don't you tear down your house and do the business there?

He's only bought the house for a year and a half. The person that was fixing the house, I said, "Hello. How are you doing?" He says, "Uh, how are you?" And he said, "Great. the person that contracted me to fix this house at 257 West London.

He just wanted a Mickey Mouse the fix and he's like, I'm going to tear it down and make a big building. Let him do it at his house to do damage to a different neighborhood, not our neighborhood. If he wants, I'll give him the the the paper so he can see it. parking. There's no parking. There's no There are only 15 apartments in this in this building. There's no parking.

They all have partners or kids. It's not just going to be 11 people living there. It's going to be more than 11 parking. It's going to be over 22 cars. Thank you very much.

Thank you guys. Thank you guys. Our next speaker is Maria de Hernandez. I possibly I can't really read the handwriting. I'm sorry, Maria. Maria. Is there a Maria? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. I I apologize. Hello to every hello to everyone. I just want to tell you that I speak a little bit English and so I wish you and I wish to explain you what I do right now. nothing because I can't see and I have um let me tell you that I have been here 42 years in that street in that little street which I ever talk I said I live in in the a little smallest street in that area because um there's um I think 14 houses on one side in the front of my house. And I used to have I b I used I have five kids and I raised them in that street. And when I was there, the the place that you fixed and have uh it's it's called the

canal uh made in the what is decided with that you um made that wasn't there when I got there. My kids used to play even in the mud when they were tiny. They they like to play with their feet when we used to go to the store and they used to get dirty all over in the mud. Now it's it's um fixed. It's nice and I just want to thank you for it because I I finished um raise my kids. I have one one my oldest kid was born with heart with with no hearing and he can he can talk because he can never hear anybody. I have a hard times in that illustrator. But I was happy mother of this old kids. They're working right now. They couldn't make it today with me. But I was I would just want to tell you that I have been very happy in that history and I wish you you don't do for money ruin the lives of like persons like me. I don't know maybe I have very little life that that I I am almost 80 years But see, I wish everyone that is there in Lynon have the happiest life that I have with my kids. I only have two there and I'm married.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Diana Mendes. Good evening. I think I spoke last time, too. You know, I've known Eliso since I was a teenager. And um like the them, we have a lot of other neighbors who are elderly. And I think last week I saw an ambulance and this is not a culde-sac. I know they called it a culde-sac. It's not. It's a dead end street. So, and I'm sure that um the fire department agrees you cannot do a turn there. They have to go in and come out. And you're going to put 75 units or 11 in a place where you literally cannot do a turn. This is a safety concern and it's not an we don't need any more apartments in that area. You guys already approved some apartments on Lake Less than a block away that they're going to be built. So, we don't really need this for housing. There's not that need. But also, the concern is safety. I've had to call an ambulance on myself in that street. The concern is safety. Are you guys going to be responsible where in an if there's a 75 building 75 unit or 11 and there's an earthquake a fire and the they can't access the place that would be on you because you guys approved it. I want you to think about that. Also, this is a community. It's not a place where we're going to be, you know,

apartment buildings like that. This is way too much for that street. And yes, we're very impacted. Like I said last time, we don't have parking, but mostly as I was listening to them, right? There's safety concerns. We cannot do this. This is not feasible in this area. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marabel Guzman. Hi, I am a homeowner on Lake Street. I am opposed to the building of two more, three more, 11, not even to mention 75 units on Lynden Street. Uh, I have a family that I'm trying to raise here in Burbank and the safety of my family and the families around the area is our priority. Our friend mentioned that there is no parking in the area. There are concerns and I agree with him where we have to move park uh trash cans to be able to park on Lake Street. Adding more vehicles to the area, it's going to impact the way of living, the safety concerns. And I just have one final question for all of you here. Is this even a question because in that area we are the Latino families. Is that where we reside? Is this why we are even having this meeting? One, two, and uh going back to what my friend said, this is a safety concern. We know the people from Lynen, the apartments, they park on lake. We are going to have additional families living there. And like my friend said, yes, they say the they park on the streets. We park on the street to save one spot for our families. So I am opposing to this construction and we need to stop the overbuild in Burbank. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Natasha. Didn't try the last. How do you pronounce it? I'm sorry.

Hi guys. Um as everyone said, parking is a problem. Um but I also just want to point out that very few people in LA, I'm 29 years old. I don't know anyone that lives alone. We can't afford it. So, you're going to have minimum two cars per units, even if you had 11. We're talking about 22 cars. We're not talking about 11 cars, even if you did have parking for every single unit, which I don't think is in the plans. And I produce films for a living. So, my question is always, how are we going to do this? And thinking about clearing that land, having trucks every single day for God knows how how long. I I don't see this as being a possibility. We already have people blocking the fire hydrant that we have in the street. We have delivery trucks. My driveway has been blocked several times to the point where I had to purchase my own do not block driveway sign because it's just impossible. Um, currently on Lynden, we have, I think, 29 blocks, I could be wrong, of land that I counted on Google images, but 13 or 14 of those are already multi-unit properties. So, we're already reaching that 50% point. And you guys have an important decision to make because you're setting a precedent about what is going to be allowed in Burbank. You can't say yes to this one person to construct this property. Another person is going to come up and start asking for the same thing. Um, and it's already basically at 50%, people are fighting. Last year when the fires happened, we weren't evacuated, but we were kind of ready to go just in case. And a tree fell on Lynen Avenue. And my first thought was, how the heck am I going to get out of here if I do need to get out of here? And we're all going to be leaving at the same time. There's one way in, one way out. We have ambulances regularly coming in. There's a lot of elderly residents. And multiple times I haven't actually been able to get into my driveway, you know, to no fault of theirs. They have nowhere else to leave the trucks and the ambulances. But it will be disruptive. I just don't think that this is a good idea. I think it's

just us not using our logical brains. I urge you to go at like 5:00 and see what's already happening there, what's happening there on trash day. I've only lived there for 2 years and this is a huge inconvenience to me already that I had to be like, gosh, can I continue living here at the state that it's already in, but I love my neighbors and I love our street and I just want to protect the community feel that is currently there. Um, that's it. Thanks, guys. Thank you. Our final speaker in person is Jorge Negral. Close enough. Please correct me. It's Jorge Negrete. Thank you.

But, uh, good evening everybody. Uh, as we know, Lynon is a dead end street, a very dense neighborhood. There's already apartment structures there posted up. and uh just the inconveniences of during trash day there's a minor parking spots available to those who currently live there. I live on lake but that also bleeds out into lake right. Uh there's also times where uh first responders have to go in and have to go out uh like the firefighters uh police officers etc. and when they have to go and uh you know pack the street, there's really uh obstacles for them as first responders to get to where they have to go. Um my brother-in-law is a police officer and there's a a lot of gang activity in uh in the area and adding more dense parking to that where people already block the reds which is reserved for them, right? People already block block the fire hydrants which is reserved for emergencies. I don't see how this could be a safe uh construction building. And uh for those that is a bluecollar neighborhood, a lot of those are working families. A lot of those are people who, you know, either get up really early or get up late at night to go to work. Uh trying to find parking at 5, at 6:00. You're not going to find it. And that's why we have that problem of parking in the red and parking in places where we're not supposed to along with competing with uh the merchandise trucks, Amazon and etc. or whoever might come in. But I really do urge you guys to, you know, working construction, we're taught to look forward, to look at the angle of it, to look at what the finished product is going to be. And, uh, 11 units is not going to bring 11 cars. It's there's more than one person moving into these units. There going to be 22 cars, 30 cars, etc. Uh, just look forward to that, right? Like, it's already dense. 30 more cars in the area doesn't make a lot of logical sense.

Well, thank you for your time. Thank you. I do have one caller. All right. We have one caller on the line. Her name is Joy Hererta. Hello. Hi. Good evening, Joy. Hi. Um, good evening, commissioners. My name, Can you guys hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Hello. you.

My name is Dory Warta and my family has lived on London Avenue for almost 40 years. I'm here to ask you to deny the developer's appeal for 75 units, but I am also here to warn you that the city's compromise of 11 units is still unsafe for the specific dead end street. I agree with the fire and police department as should you. The fire department already opposed this larger project because this street is too narrow for proper emergency access. says physical constraints do not change just because you lower the unit count. We are on a datam street. There's one way in, one way out. By squeezing in 11 unit complex between two single family homes, you're creating a safety bottleneck. If a fire truck or ambulance is blocked by the inevitable overflow parking or delivery truck, no one gets out. That's on you guys. Then here's a density map. The lot is only 21 acres. The under normal R3 zoning, this land is zoned for five to six units max. The developer wants 75 units which is 12 times the limit. The city is offering 11 units which is double that limit. Doubling the density is on a dead end street that has no turnaround capability. not a home is is a direct threat to the public safety of the hundreds of residents that already live there. We are already at capacity. Our block has already done its fair share of affordable housing which I mentioned last month. We're already dealing with the impact including illegal dumping, graffiti, and a total lack of parking. As said by many residents that live there day in and day out, our infrastructure is maxed out to add another 11 households into this fragile mix is reckless. The director

rejected the 75 units because of specific adverse impacts on public safety. I'm I'm telling you those adverse impacts still exist at 11 units. Please, please, please deny the appeal and restrict this property to the standard argument limit of five or units. Do not compromise the safety of the existing hundreds of residents already there just to settle with this developer. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Do we have any further callers on the line?

No, we do not. Okay. All right. I'm going to assume that that's not all. All right. There being no further public comment on this item. I now declare the public comment period closed. Would the representative of the community development department like to make any further comments? You may have a maximum time of 20 minutes.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Daniel Via, principal planner with the community development department. Um, I'll be going over a couple slides as part of staff's rebuttal. May I please have the slide deck on the screen and just so that we're on the same page, I'll be going over the slide deck. Then I'll have a rep representative of the transportation division come in and speak a little bit and then after that I'll just be responding to some of the questions that were or questions or comments that were just flagged. Thanks.

And hopefully I I think the time we have is 20 minutes. I think we'll be well below that. Thank you. So, uh, the purpose of this presentation is really just to provide the planning commission and the public a quick refresher on the project because it's been about a month. The project was originally submitted on April 29, 2025. The applicant submitted a proposal for a six-story 75 unit affordable housing development with units ranging in size between 244 feet to 362 ft. No vehicle was proposed uh on the site and 75 bicycle parking spaces were proposed. 74 of the units were proposed as incomerestricted. This is this slide shows the applicant's rendering of the proposed six-story building. As proposed, the project significantly exceeded the allowable density and height for the R3 zone. Madam Chair, can we just for the moment just for the sake uh we really want to make sure that the commission can understand what's being presented by staff. So if we can keep comments from the audience to limit it, that would be really appreciated. Just want to have you help us make sure excuse me, make sure we get through this process in an orderly way and that the commission is able to understand everything that's being communicated. So thank you for and respecting that request.

Thanks. This slide shows the applicant's rendering of the proposed six-story building. As proposed, the project significantly exceeded the allowable density and height for the R3 zone. The image helps illustrate the scale of the originally proposed 75 unit development. The applicant attempted to invoke provisions of the state density bonus law to justify unlimited density and zero parking. As we'll touch on later in the presentation, staff determined the product does not qualify for those allowances under state law. The city conducted a review of the application and established that the 75 unit project does not comply with multiple city development standards and state law, does not qualify for limited density or zero parking, does not comply with the California fire code, and would result in specific adverse impacts to public health and safety. Therefore, on September 5th, 2025, the development director approved the project with conditions. These conditions require that the project be reduced to 11 units, comply with the California fire code and other city standards, and also submit revised plans addressing all specific adverse impacts to the public health and safety. The applicant appealed the director's decision on September 11, 2025, asserting that the director unlawfully reduced the project's density from 75 units to 11 units. It was staff's assessment that the appellant did not present evidence as part of their appeal application to change our position. The planning commission heard the appeal on December 8th, 2025. At that meeting, staff and the appellant presented their respective positions and the commission received public comment. After public comment, the commission voted 5 to continue the item to tonight's meeting to allow staff, the commission, and the public time to review additional materials submitted by the appellant at the December 8th, 2025 meeting. Following the uh December 8 2025 planning commission meeting, staff reviewed the additional material

submitted by the appellant. After careful review, staff determined that the information provided does not constitute substantively new evidence. It alters staff's prior analysis or conclusions and also it large it largely reiterates arguments that were previously raised and already addressed in the director's decision, staff rep staff's reports and prior correspondence. As a result, staff's analysis and recommendations to the planning commission remain unchanged. Based on the administrative record, staff finds no basis to overturn or modify the director's decision of approving 11 units. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the director's condition approval of an 11 unit project at 257 West Lindon Avenue. Before ending staff's rebuttal, there is one more thing I want to touch on. As already noted, the project is not consistent with multiple applicable requirements. However, the city in the city's correspondence with the appellant, much of the appellent's focus has been on why the project does qualify for unlimited density, even though staff's position is that they don't. To clarify this issue, staff in coordination with the city's transportation division will respond to that assertation. Unlimited density is a provision of a available under the California density bonus law. To qualify a project must satisfy specific statutory criteria. The appellant asserts that a project meets the required criteria identified on this slide. First that the project qualifies as a 100% affordable housing development and second that the project is located in a very low vehicle travel area. While staff agrees that the project is prop as proposed is a 100% affordable housing project, staff has determined that the that the project site is not within a very low vehicle travel area. As a result of not complying with that second requirement, the project does not qualify for unlimited density. To provide more information and context on how the city reached this determination, I will now invite a representative from our transportation division to provide more information.

Uh good evening uh Chair Wick and members of the commission. My name is David Kriskkey. I'm the assistant community development director uh for transportation uh with the community development department. Uh and my staff is responsible for in this case evaluating the transportation impacts of development projects that come before uh the city including the planning commission. Uh and as Mr. Vas stated uh I was involved in evaluating the applicant's claim for unlimited density under state uh density bonus law. And uh as Mr. Via stated uh we have concluded that the project does not qualify for this unlimited density. Uh to do this um the state law requires us to look at a concept called vehicle miles traveled or VMT. Um you may be familiar with reviewing projects uh in terms of their trips. So the number of cars that come in and out of a project or the number of cars driving on a road. Vehicle miles traveled or VMT is related to that, but it's also tying in the trips along with the length that those trips are taking. And the reason we do that, the state requires us to look at this in a variety of transportation areas is because that is a measure of the environmental impact of car traffic to the environment because that's greenhouse gases emitted into the environment. Um the VMT unlike trips that can be counted or can be measured or uh or looked at more explicitly, vehicle miles traveled uh rely on uh computerized models of transportation systems. Uh the city has a local model. Uh the Southern California Associ association of governments is a 5count transportation agency. It also has a model and so we have to rely on those models to evaluate vehicle miles traveled uh in terms of transportation. So how does uh VMT apply to this project? Uh the state density bonus law defines a concept called uh very low vehicle travel area. And what it does is it looks at vehicle miles traveled of a very small area around a project uh like a a couple of city block level of of size and compares that to a larger area either a citywide uh

measurement or even a countywide or even a regionwide uh measurement. Um and what the density law says is that if the very small area uh measures a VMT that is at least 15% or more below the larger average then it is considered to be VMT efficient and basically that area of the city is uh generating trips that are less per capita than the typical uh neighborhood or city as part of a city or region. And so the state density bonus law says that uh we we are required if a project is built in this area that we are required to grant unlimited density in these VMT efficient areas. So uh we looked at this uh issue uh quite a bit as part of this project. Um when we first received the application, uh uh my staff uh reviewed the claim uh for unlimited density and very low vehicle travel area using the city's local uh travel demand model and we found that the uh area where the project is located did not meet that 15% or more below. Um that again that is the VMT of the very immediate area of the project as compared in this case to the citywide average. So, we did not meet that um criteria and that was documented on your December 8th staff report, exhibit F, page F9, where we uh uh tell the applicant that case that he does not meet that criteria. In response to that um uh determination by staff, the applicant requested us to not use the local uh VMT model, but to use the uh regionwide Southern California Association of Governments model and particularly asked us to look at a uh tool that they have available to uh the public and uh transportation practitioners that summarizes vehicle miles travel statistics for small areas and the region as a whole. So based on that uh request that he uh evaluate the regional tool, we did look at that and looked at the SCAG helper tool and we found that under the regional SCAG helper tool, this project also does not

qualify for a very low vehicle travel area and that is documented in your December 8th um staff report and our director's decision uh exhibit H uh page H6 and H7. In response to our director's decision, the applicant provided uh a a memo from a transportation consultant that was hired by the applicant that used the regional model but calculated their own VMT metrics and that memo uh asserted that using regionwide data, the VMT did meet the 15% threshold. Um that memo did uh uh that memo provided a statistic that was vastly different than the SCAG u statistic available in its tool and provided no evidence or documentation or explanation as to why that was so different. And so we uh reviewed that and made our determination at that time from that information that that uh memo was not credible and that we remained uh consistent to use this SCAG provided tool to uh say that the regional data did not meet the 15% threshold. Uh and that uh is documented in the December 8th staff report exhibit I uh of that report. And finally, uh, after the December 8th public hearing that was continued, uh, and at the request of the applicant, uh, city staff met with the applicant's consultant to seek more information about how they calculated that number and hopefully to find out why that number was so different than the number published by the Southern California Association of Governments. Uh, and in response to that, the applicant's consultant did provide additional information both via email and via a supplemental memo. Um based on that information, the city performed a third-party review from another transportation consultant to evaluate that memo. Uh and the uh the city's consultant concluded that the applicant's memo did not calculate the

VMT in accordance with the uh density bonus uh law and de definitions. Uh nor did they calculate it in accordance with state guidance on how to do these sorts of calculations uh and not within industry standards. And that uh information is documented on today's staff report uh exhibit D and exhibit E. And so uh in summary uh this is a critical issue. This vehicle miles traveled and low vehicle travel area uh uh issue is very critical to this project. We analyzed this many different ways six ways from Sunday and at every step of the way uh staff concluded that it did not meet the definition of very low vehicle travel area. And so therefore we are um asserting that this project is not subject to unlimited density. Uh that concludes my explanation and I'm available later for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Kriskkey. And and just final thing I'm just going to respond to a couple comments uh general themes that were um that were brought up during the public comment. So at a high level just to clarify. So why why is the city approving uh through conditions of approval 11 units? Um so the applicant proposed 70 75 unit project. We for several reasons as identified in staff presentation. Uh we were in the position that they we could not permit that we the commission it is our recommendation that that cannot be approved based on a number of reasons. Having said that what staff's uh what staff did was we identified what could be approved based on our city requirements and state law. Um so based on our city requirements the applicant by right uh through the appropriate processes can build up to six units. Uh in addition to that, state density bonus law does allow for an 80% density bonus to that uh if they provide 100% affordability for their units. Um so at most an applicant can potentially produce or or develop 11 units in this on this property. Uh so that's why in the condition of approval, you'll find the staff identifies that we approve up to 11 units. The applicant would have to comply with the requirements to be able to meet that that number. they'd have to provide again 100% affordability for the units um at certain income levels. It's uh and and it's unclear at this point whether the applicant would actually want to do that, but again our approval letter does state that they have the ability of doing that. Uh in addition to that, there was the topic of parking. So the original proposal of 75 units uh included zero parking. Um, as identified in STA's report and staff presentation, uh, as proposed, the applicant does not qualify to be able to provide no parking on their property. Per density bonus law, there are certain qualifiers that, uh, an applicant would have to meet to be able to qualify for for no parking. Uh, one of those qualifiers is that they have to be within a half mile of of of transit stations, which are defined in the density bonus law. Uh, they are not within that. So, uh, having said that, the applicant would have to comply with,

uh, either the, uh, city's parking requirement or or dens California density bonus law parking requirement unless they invoke other provisions of the law that potentially allow them the ability of reducing parking further. Just wanted to clarify those two things. I do understand that the number of units and parking uh is a common thing that was brought up, but wanted to provide those clarifying points for the commission just so that you understand why staff presented that not only in the report in our presentation, but also in our director's decision for this project. If there are any other questions, we can always answer them during Q&A. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. Does the appellant or their representative make wish to make any further comments? You will have a maximum time of 20 minutes.

Good evening, commissioners. I'll be very brief. Um, this appeal turns on one narrow issue, whether the city may lawfully reduce the density of 100% affordable housing project. after completing its review where the administrative record shows the site qualifies for a low VMT location under state law. I understand that the transportation gentleman disagrees with that position, but the consultant that we hired, Irus, is one of the top consultants in the state for studying transportation issues and they've determined this is a low VMT site and that entitled entitled us per state law to have unlimited density and zero parking. The city transportation staff met uh directly with Idrris uh received a supplemental memorandum and confirmed the analysis relied on the SCAG regional model. We reviewed the peer review memorandum carefully. It does not provide a competing VMT calculation or conclude that the site falls fails the lead low VMT standard. Based on the full record, our position remains that this site is clearly in the low VMT location under state law. We've uh also I'd like to address some of the fire access issues that were previously raised. Um fire access concerned by raises fire access concerns raised by staff are design level issues resolved at planch check under the housing accountability act. density may be reduced only if city provable mitigation. Our record shows feasible code compliant pathways which are appropriately addressed through planch check conditions. So we are going to

provide a uh a design that complies with the fire access requirements. At this point we believe the record is complete. The city has completed its review and state law requires a decision. We respectfully ask the commission to act tonight and grant the appeal. Thank you very much. All right. I now declare the public hearing closed and the planning commission will not Oh, I apologize. Does the commission have any questions for staff or the appellant? Didn't mean to jump the gun.

Um, yeah. I have a question for uh Mr. Krisky, please. Um the you provided um let's wait till he gets up.

Um I'm looking at exhibit D um which is your conversation with the folks from uh um Idris here. Um the tool that they're talking about um is that tool a standard used anywhere else in the state? So this tool is available um publicly for um for people in the SCAG region. So that's the 5count region in Southern California uh to to easily access VMT information for uh planning purposes. Um it is a it is it is also convenient in that it has the uh statistics needed to calculate the very low vehicle travel area uh that is required by the state density bonus law. And so uh we uh use this tool to um make the regional calculation uh for very low vehicle travel area. Okay. Um here uh in the conversation back and forth here you've um provided their response. Um we discussed the discrepancy between the TAZ trip figure per uh per capita figure calculated by 13 vehicle miles per capita and the TAZ trip per capita figure provided by SCAG and their help helper tool about 18 vehicle miles traveled per capita. um these other residential trips were not included in ITRUS VMT per capita calculation. I mean this reads like they made a mistake in their in their analysis.

Yes, I believe that they did and our consultant also believes that they did. Um the the main crux is that uh as required by um state guidance for VMT calculations and for industry practice when you're doing these sorts of VMT calculations especially with the very advanced complicated model uh that the regional model with Southern California Association of Governments what they use uh they uh did not include all of the trips basically emanating from that little area. they only uh calculated kind of the first trip out of the out of the area. When a resident living in an area is going to make several trips throughout the day be you know throughout the course of their coming and going that that Skagg says need to be assigned all those trips need to be assigned to the people or or uh or residences living in that zone. And what it did is they only calculated kind of the first trip out the gate which is usually to work uh in these models but whatever that first trip was. And so uh we we determined that was the fundamental difference probably the difference in the numbers uh and we concluded that that is not the appropriate calculation for this particular scenario.

Okay. So they're imagining that um or the numbers that they have are based on just going to work and coming back home. Whereas in reality most people chain a bunch of stuff together. when I go out and pick up my daughter, I then go and get my dry cleaning. I get a little bit of um you know, I go to the grocery store. Um that all stuff, I mean, that sounds like it would um uh provide a pretty significant margin on top of that. Okay. Yes. Cool. I I think I got enough information. Commissioners, Commissioner Bennett, I don't have anything for Mr. Krisky, I guess. Did you have anything else, Mike? Do you want to say? Uh no, not for Mr. Krisky. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Bennett,

I just wanted to ask staff about the letter that we received from CalHDF. They raised in the we received this in our packet um at the last meeting. It was dropped on our desk the last meeting. So, this letter seems to raise several concerns about the city's fire, especially the city's fire objections um and claims that many of the objections are not actually codified into California law. I didn't see any any addressing of these claims. So, I just wondered if anyone had to if you could address that.

Commissioner, thank you for the question. So, um, at a high level, like, uh, that memo identified concerns with, uh, with our assertions that the applicant was not conforming with requirements or the product was not conforming with the requirements of the California Fire Code. Yes.

Uh, what I would add to, we do have representatives from our fire department here who can speak, but I'll just set the table for them. So at a high level there's there's really um like the crux of the matter when it comes to compliance with the California fire code is that the proposal of the the proposed product at 75 units uh the height proposed the number of stories proposed the number of units proposed the the dimensions in which it's proposed uh is required to provide two emergency uh two emergency means of access uh for emergency vehicles. Uh generally speaking in most cases the first of those is usually the street in this case Lynon Avenue and then in many cases uh as you may see if any of you are familiar with the project that uh at 2018 West I believe it's 2018 West Empire over 2814 West Empire over by Gross Park. Um, as as some of you may have noticed there, like in other cases, they also provide a secondary means of emergency access on site through through what fire calls a ham like a an on-site fire lane that usually includes a hammerhead at the end so vehicles emergency vehicles can maneuver in and out of the site. In this specific case, the applicant was providing one emergency uh means of access, which was Lyn Lynon Avenue. Uh there they attempted to provide a second, which was the alley at the rear. Our fire department looked at the California fire code, established that it was not consistent with those requirements. Uh, additionally, not consistent with city requirements when it came to fire requirements. And they actually went a step beyond that. They went a step beyond that and actually conducted an on-site assessment. They took a fire truck out there, attempted to maneuver through the alley, found it extremely difficult. Uh, not only because of the width of the the width of the alley itself, which ranges between 16 to 18 feet, uh, but also because of utilities. There's power lines out there. There's uh there's also ballers out there that are just kind of limiting access. Having said that though, I will invite up uh our fire marshall or or someone from a fire department who can come up and just speak a little bit more about the

applicability of these requirements or before that our city attorney. Good evening uh commissioners. So, Ray Johal with the city attorney's office, just so that uh I can address the question that was raised. Uh the city does go through cycles and adoption of building codes as well as the California state fire code. Uh that code was adopted. I believe it was 2021 was the last adoption uh before the recent adoption in 2025. Uh but the the Burbank Municipal Code does adopt the California Fire Code in its entirety subject to um amendments and those are listed in the actual uh staff report and resolution for the adoption of the fire code. In this case, uh the letter that that the commission received as well as staff and the public uh does not address the fact that the city has adopted the fire code um verbatim subject to exceptions and none of the exceptions that were adopted uh related to the um to the fire access lane. So those codes are part of the Burbank municipal code.

Okay. But sir, um it says the letter spitly says that the state fire marshall, I'm quoting here, the state fire marshall has not adopted section 503 and the city has not incorporated this section into its fire code. This requirement is therefore inapplicable to the project. Further, the city also cites appendix D. However, the state fire marshall has not adopted appendix D and the city did not incorporate into its fire code. This requirement is also inaccible to the project. And then it talks a little bit about the hammerhead access. I mean, so do you do you agree or disagree with those statements?

We disagree with that those statements. So the state fire marshall can adopt certain portions of the California fire code. Uh the city and local jurisdictions can adopt any any reference of of the uh California fire code. It it so chooses. Normally in the city of Burbank, we adopt the fire code as written. Sure. Uh subject to amendments or uh exceptions. And in this case for 2021 and 2025, we we adopted the fire code as written. It's separate from how the state the state fire marshall itself adopts portions of the fire code as well. Okay. All right. Thank you.

And we and we do have representatives from the fire department who can address that as well. No, I'm fine. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I would like I would like further explanation.

Thank you.

I'm Joel Pettis. I'm the fire marshal. This is Danny King, assistant fire marshal, and he'll answer that question.

Hi, good evening. Um, so we did adopt the fire code and the appendixes in the fire code where you'll see um the appendix D sections that talk about uh access as far as if you have a truck company and the width of the access. So that was adopted in our municipal code. So that's why we stated those items on this. So um a lot of this all the sections D in turning including the turnarounds were adopted and uh so everything that was mentioned on that was an adopted item that we did in the fire code through the municipal code. Um so that's why we we get the widths of 26 feet um or even D 105.1 where required where the vertical distance between the greater plane and the highest roof surfaces 30 ft exceeds 30 feet which this building exceeds 30 feet. Approved aerial fire apparis access roads shall be provided. The highest roof service shall be measured to the eve of the pitched roof, the roof wall intersection or the top of the parapit walls, whichever is greater. As it continues, the width, and I mentioned fire um aerial apparatus, we have a truck company, which is a large ladder with a tiller person that steers it. D5.2 2 width aerial fire apparatus access road shall be a minimum unobstructed width of 26 ft exclusives of shoulders in the immediate vicinity of the building. So these items represent what we have in our fire department and the and the room that we need to do our operations.

Okay. Thank you. Typically, typically I wait for But may I ask a question of the fire department while they're standing here so we don't make them get up and down. Up and down. Normally I like everybody to finish first, but I'm sure this I'm sure they're very fit people. I have slightly less technical questions about fire just and I won't hold you to an exact number but in terms of the city's fire response team you get a call perfect conditions how fast are you typically at a street like Lynon 5 minutes

5 minutes okay and this is with not no obstructions can you walk through the process of what would happen with obstructions because we've we've seen the pictures in the alley. Could you typically walk us through your process and I estimate what your response time would be? I know this is it's a very

the amount of cars on that street could definitely affect it for sure. We uh we had definitely we set the ladder up in the back and then we did it in the front and we had actually had to back down Lynon to get it down there. So the amount of cars that are on that street like especially on a Saturday would definitely affect the time. Got it. Um and I know you probably can't say but would it double the time? Would it triple the time? It's hard to say. It's hard to say. depend is there are there scenarios where based on what's going on in the alley you wouldn't be able to provide fire access

that alley is tight tighter than Lynon um you saw the pictures from last time and you're talking about a a medical call where we just send in an engine and an ambulance if there's a fire there we got seven pieces of apparatus that need to get down there so and in your experience does the amount of units increase fire risk in terms of I mean obviously it would increase calls because there's more people but would it does it increase the risk of fire fire spreading? Uh yeah, of course it does. And then the height of that building we can't access it. Okay. The front or the back to be quite honest.

So what would happen? Like if you can't the building just Okay. Well, that's what I'm getting at. I mean You know, we've been we've been technical. I'm trying to get less technical just because I feel like we all have those basic questions. Okay. Um those are my questions for the fire department. I have a question. Um go for it. What scenario would that alleyway be a viable mean of means of access for uh for fire safety? Two stories. Two stories. So, at a two-story building, I mean, there's a three story on that street that we could probably hit with a ground ladder.

Okay. Um, but I mean, you're not using one of the major trucks in that situation. You're like, I can't get it down there. Okay. So, something more to the tune of like the the Tacoma sized fire trucks that I feel like I've seen on the roads a couple times. Um, something more maneuverable and then you're using like actual ladders that you're bringing in by hand. Okay. Two stories. Um uh what's our height uh limit for two stories in the city? Is that 25 ft? So in the R3 zone, we allow uh buildings that are in height. Uh actually, let me confirm. Just give me a second. Sorry, just bring that out, you guys. Uh we have a 35 foot ladder on our truck that we could hit a three story with.

Okay. but you wouldn't feel comfortable trying to attempt that um with a third story uh on on this uh in this proposal. So, Mr. Amiris, I see you close to the mic. Go ahead. So, so in the R3 zone uh for a property uh like this, which I believe it's more than 500 ft away from single family, uh they'd be allowed to have a top of height of up to 35 ft to the highest ceiling of the structure. Yeah. which is usually two to three stories. Two to three. Okay. Chair, can I just ask the fire department to clarify? Absolutely.

If I'm hearing the line of questioning that uh Commissioner Vangorder is asking, um can you guys clarify uh calls for service? You're you're going to be I don't know if this is true, but clarify. Um are you changing the different type of equipment that's showing up to a location in case there's a fire or an emergency call? Is it are you using what's available at the time and and is that standardized or do we have smaller vehicles that we're using? No, a fire call gets all the same amount of equipment on everyone and and three engines, two trucks, an ambulance and a battalion

and the dimensional requirements that you need to be able to get access to them. Do those change from uh vehicle to vehicle or is it one standard set of dimensions that you need to provide fire service?

It's depending on like the truck company. If you have a truck company, it's 26 ft. Usually, if you look in the municipal code, it' be a 20 foot uh uh clearance of a fire lane or fire access. But since we're dealing with a truck company, uh it's required to be 26 ft. And that's because when you you see the regular truck company, but when the outriggers, the supports come out, that truck just went to 19t wide. So that's why they're 26 feet because we still have to move around it with equipment. So when you go to from the width of the regular truck and then it's the outriggers come out for support. Now we're talking 19 foot wide truck and we still have to get around with equipment. So that 26 ft allows that in this case.

And chair if I can just elaborate and the reason those outriggers are needed is to stabilize the stabilize the truck so they go higher. Right. Correct. Okay. That's just wanted to make sure. Got it. And with would adding a private hydrant help in these circumstances or would it make would it make any kind of difference? If you had a hydrant then that kicks off a 26 foot wide lane also. Okay. Automatically. Okay. Yeah. Right. And sorry chair. No commissioner Van Gorder had the mic. So I just wanted Oh, I apologize. Thank you. I apologize commissioner Van Gorder. I'm good. Thank you. And thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you.

Further questions for staff, fire marshall, appellant or I'm sorry, applicant. No further. One question for staff. Oh, please. Thank you very much. Um there has been no proposal from the applicant for a an 11 unit project. Correct? That like there's no plans or anything?

That that is correct. So staff initially reviewed a 75 unit proposal. We uh provided comments to the applicant attempted to engage in back and forth to hopefully land on revisions that complied with our requirements. The applicant at that point in time declined to revise the drawings. He gave us assertations identifying why he complied with all all of our requirements, why he disagreed with us. Uh again, did not revise the drawing. Subsequent to that, we issued our decision letter. Uh so no, to your to your question, uh the applicant has not submitted an 11 unit proposal. Okay. Um on I want to say Elm, the south the south side of Elm, which is like two or three streets uh west of there. Um there are some multif family buildings. Are any of those comparable to the size that's being proposed here? I wouldn't I wouldn't know what properties are are on Elm. I I would Yeah, I wouldn't be able to answer that question without going out there and looking at them and maybe going on Google and spending some time

Okay. looking through it. It's a nice neighborhood. You should check it. Sorry about that. Commissioner Chair, can I can I ask if just to indulge me for a moment your your question about an alternate project proposal? Um Danny, can you kind of bring us back? I think in the presentation you alluded to this. you provided some reference, but why did the director approve uh recommend modifying the project and approving an 11 unit project? What why is that the case?

Yeah. So, just to uh to restate that, so um the 75 unit proposal did not comply with our requirements. So, uh as part of issuing a decision, uh staff working with the director established what could be approved like like what could we approve given our city requirements and state density bonus law. the number we landed on was up to 11 units. Uh that that um assumes that the applicant is going to provide the proper level of affordability uh in terms of number of units to meet that uh that allowance of 11 units. Uh but the number may come down depending on the applicant's uh like proposal uh ultimately in level of affordability. Uh again just to to restate the 11 unit the 11 units would would assume that the applicant would provide 100% affordable units as part of the proposal.

The additional units would be uh would be 100% affordable or the six that you're saying they're afforded by right would be um 100% affordable. All of them with the exception of one uh which would be the manager's unit. Okay. Thank you. So 10 and one manager's unit and affordable to low-inccome not very low income. It is uh it's broken down by percentages I believe. Give me a second and I'll get the numbers. But a certain percentage would be available to uh low income and the other percentage to moderate income. But give me a second and I can confirm those numbers.

But I mean like it's not half and half. It's not the additional bonus units would be um affordable and then the others are market rate. It's they're all in some way going to be income restricted. Correct. All in somewhere income restricted with the exception of one which is a manager's unit.

Thank you chair. Just one last thing. I'm sorry. Just want to make sure just for clarity and the Daniel, can you clarify? Um is when someone invokes density bonus law, does the city have uh outside of determining uh certain uh limitations, is the city have the option to not approve a density bonus application? So just as a clarifying point, so um so ultimately uh there is a housing accountability act and also state density bonus law. So so what those both state and um and require cities to comply with is cities have to allow housing is identified in in their development standards. Cities cannot arbitrarily say no, we're not going to allow it. It's something that the property is zoned for. It's something that the property um that that city requirement, city standards identify can be done. Uh beyond that, there's also density bonus law. Um and that h includes allowances. So what I believe Mr. Emeris was was getting at is um the city ultimately has to allow housing. Uh the question is is the housing being proposed consistent with our requirements um and also density bonus law. In this specific case, the reason that we're allowing an an 11 unit project in addition to to it complying with density bonus law and our requirements is because state law states that the city cannot arbitrarily deny a project. The reason we said no to 75 units is because the city believed that the product the product did not comply with our requirements did not comply with state law and additionally it also created significant adverse impacts specifically fire access issues right um so just to summarize that it is the city's position that the city has to permit um development on the site it's our position that 11 units um up to 11 units can be built based on our and state law requirements and Mr. Ramirez, I if you want to add a little bit to that, please do.

No, no, I just wanted to make that distinction. I think uh based on the feedback we heard from the public and the discussion that you're having, um what's presented by the director's determination is basically the upper limit of density development and it uh is conditioned that it would have to meet all the other requirements to be able to hit that upper limit of 11. That means the on-site parking uh and all the other development standards that um Mr. Via had noted as well as the fire code requirements which you heard about height and accessibility. So if all those things are addressed then the upper limit of development based on the director's determination would be that upper limit of 11. So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear uh to the commission. We've had other applications for density bonus and I wanted to make sure that that was understood. It's the the developer has the right to request that and if they meet the standards and they comply with those requirements, we have to approve that level of development. And just to clarify that the city's position is that if up to 11 units with a proposal that does meet the objective standards and fire code requirements would mitigate the adverse impacts that the city evaluated and determined would be in in effect on a 75 unit uh proposal as proposed by the developer. So we are we have not received a subsequent proposal for the 11 unit uh potential development. So if we would need to the city would need to still evaluate that to to determine if a a future potential proposal meets the fire codes, mitigates the adverse impact seen by the city um to the point where the city feels comfortable approving the development um and uh addressing the adverse impact issue. If they chose to just do market rate units, then they would be only afforded to do six and that like those are the buy right units. If they chose to uh max

out there if if they're not invoking density bonus law, they're just going to be proposing what code required. Uh they could then at that point do the uh Daniel, was that six units?

Um it it's six units total. And and one thing that I I'll just add um is one of the things that that I just want to highlight again is the product itself. It's we talked about California fire code and how access is an issue. We've talked about unlimited density. Uh but one thing I want to highlight is that there's also a lot of other development standards such as height, such as setbacks, such as lock coverage, a lot of other standards that applicants are required to comply with that this product is not complying with. Uh beyond that, there's also a lot of state laws that this project is not complying with. So just want to restate that. Um, so it's in the record that uh the applicant has really zeroed in on one thing which is unlimited density in most of the discussion with city staff. However, there's a lot of other laws that we've identified and uh have not been estab and and the applicant has at times responded to but not identified how they would comply with it.

I have one more thing to say, but I want to make sure that I I think I cut you off earlier. You're very kind. Thank you. Um there's a another project going on on or that there's I've seen another proposal for a project on Lake and Elm. I believe that applicant proposed three units. Um I mean in terms of lot size um are you familiar with this project? Would you be able to to to speak to that on how they might be comparable? I'm not but I'm not sure Mr. Ramirez or Mr. Planck if either of you are. No. Um, and I would encourage the commission to focus on the merits of this project. Okay.

As you're looking at it because site conditions are different, lot sizes could be different. Uh, access issues could be different. So, I think this one merits and I know that's what you guys are honed in on is, uh, like how does this project meet or would meet the development centers applicable to it at this location. I believe the zoning is might be different as well. So, Okay. Thank you. I have a question for the developer, for the appellent. Appellent, sorry. Or applicant, excuse me. Applicant, sorry. Uh, we've had a lot of discussion and um I also have a question and you're the only one that most probably can answer it. What are your plans?

What are our plans? Yes. Um we'd like to get approval to proceed with our design as is as you have presented it. Yes. With no other additions, any other discussions with the city.

There's going to be some adjustments that'll happen during the plan check phase. Uh we clearly want to comply with the fire access issues. we will most likely find another way to provide a fire lane or a fire uh access lane. Um so we will be making adjustments to the design, but the intent of this hearing is to um approve the um unlimited density request plus the zero parking request because it's a low VMP site. We will make adjustments to the design. And to uh respond to some of the comments Daniel had was yes, we are going to be asking also for a waiver of development standards such as heights setbacks. Those are all part of the state law that when you're developing a 100% affordable housing project, you're allowed to request. So um we can have more discussions with Daniel later but that's our intent is to move forward with this project to answer your question.

Thank you. May I actually jump in and ask a question uh for the applicant as well. Um kind of going back to the the transportation studies uh the the group that you hired um it started with an I. I'm sorry. I Is this a group that I I'm familiar with them. Have you hired them before for your other projects? You have not hired them before? No. Um Okay. So, my next question was going to be have they used this model for you before, but obviously um No.

Um how in terms of projects I read your biography and the initial report. How many projects have you develop developed or you're you're the architect so how many plans have you

I've developed many projects and this this project this particular type of project that you're seeing now is done commonly in other cities uh city of Los Angeles I have one right now that's being developed just like this that actually is a R1 zone which only allows a single family home so Um it's uh based on state law. So we're developing these projects uh many of them, not just this one. I have larger ones. This is actually one of the smaller ones. So um but yeah, I I think it's it's I'm quite surprised actually that we've come this far with this level of approval. Normally, it's ministerial because it's not a um what's the word? Uh it's not a discretionary uh approval. It's a ministerial approval process. So, state law clearly states that. So, that's that's this actual whole uh hearing. I'm kind of surprised that we've had come come to this hearing. It should have happened at sort of staff level. So,

okay. And then as far as as far as your other projects go in other cities, I understand we're talking about Burbank here. I'm getting eyes from the city attorney. Um do you do you find have you had any issues with fire codes and where you haven't been able to figure it out? Have you always been able to figure out fire issues in plan check? Have you ever had any projects that have not met fire codes that haven't moved forward because of it or have you always been able to figure out a plan check?

Yeah, we've had projects uh that are very deep lots. For example, there's access issues. So, um I'm familiar with the fire codes. Um but in this particular case, the threshold for approval is um not to hash out all the fire code issues in this design, but um it's something that we acknowledge will have to be done and um we think there is a viable solution to meet the fire codes for this project. So, but yeah, I've I've come across that those issues before. I deal with fire departments all the time, other cities. So,

you may you may not want to say this and that's completely fine. Are you able to speculate how you would hash out the fire issues in plan check?

I mean, one possible scenario is to have a fire lane going through the building on on site. So, we would provide a fire access lane on the on the property and uh that would be uh you know compliant with the width and the height and we'd also have a staging area in the back where the alley is and have an apparatus spot where they could actually have those outriggers go out and hold the fire truck. So, um that's a solution that I think we'd be leaning towards. And if you had a fire lane through the building, would you still pursue 75 units or would that reduce it?

Um, it might reduce it, but it's there's a lot of common areas on the first floor right now that um we might need to move around uh like electric rooms, bike storage spaces. So um at this point we want to sort of pass this hurdle of low VMT and 100% affordable and then we'll we may reduce the density if we have to. Okay. Those are all the questions I have for the applicant. Does anyone have any other? Okay. All right. Are there any further questions for staff?

I want to ask one final question to staff. If hypothetically we were to decide that the city's VMT model is correct but that the fire issues should should be sorted out at a plan check level. What would the net result of that? What would the net effect of that be on the proposal in terms of how it would you know state law would affect it? So in that scenario the if we assume well our position is that the city's uh VMT assessment is correct. Um in that scenario uh the applicant would not be allowed unlimited density

uh the highest number of units they'd be able to to do per density bonus that would be 11. Okay. So it would be somewhat irrelevant the fire question would be irrelevant if we decided that your VMT uh model is correct. It it would depend. An applicant can propose uh three, four, five, six story 11 buildings, but uh but the density would be scaled down significantly. Sure. Okay. Thank you,

Chair. If I may, just to clarify for the commissioner, in essence, what staff is recommending, the recommendation would be to approve it up to no more than 11, and the project would have to conform with the California Fire Code requirements, including access. So in theory, denying the appeal and affirming the director's decision would be the conclusion I think that you were alluding to in the sense of what what would be the alternate project that complies with fire code and has the density that we're required by state law to allow. Yes. That would be that inter in that intersection that point. Yeah. The intersection between those two. Thank you.

Yeah. I have an another question for staff and this is this is more just for the benefit of the public because I regardless of what happens I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of questions and so my question for staff would be assuming that the decision is upheld for up to 11 units. What would that look like in terms of the next steps? And then also, I'm I'm not 100% up to date on the parking minimums for Burbank. So, what would parking minimums look like for that? I know that there's a lot of different moving parts, but commissioner or chair. Um, so in terms of what the proc what would the process look like if if the commission was to uh to uphold staff decision and deny the appeal. I I'll begin with that. So the applicant would have to make a decision as to whether to proceed with the project or not. If they choose to proceed with it, they would uh work on construction drawings at some point submit construction drawing for city review uh through the city's building division. At that point, staff would review the the pro uh the plans, identify consistency with all the development standards, the California fire code, all the applicable state laws, all the city's development standards. Um and then at that point establish whether whether we can approve the building permit or not. Um in response to your additional to your second question, which was about parking, uh the project as as staff has identified does not qualify uh for zero parking. Just one point of clarification that I want to put on the record is uh the applicant has asserted that because they are a very low vehicle travel area that they qualify for zero parking. When looking at the density bonus law, that is not a qualifier for zero parking. The qualifier for zero parking is that you're within a half mile of a major

transit stop. Um so just wanted to clarify that because that statement from the applicant applicant/appelling was incorrect. Um but should they go through plan check propose a project they would have to comply with either the city's parking requirements or the requirements in the California density bonus law. Uh those requirements range between one to two parking spaces a unit depending on the size of those units. So you would you would see presumably between one and two parking spaces per unit depending on the size. The applicant can in theory request for waiverss from development standards if they so wish to. Uh it's something that we would have to review as part of uh their plan check submitt.

I have two more questions. Um easy first element and lake. There's a bus stop there. That is not a major transit stop. So So we have uh we have a definition uh state law. Give me a second to pull up um I keep doing this. The definition in state law. And Mr. Chrisy, if if you feel comfortable responding to this, you can also uh he's he's coming up. Yeah. So, and uh Mr. Kriski is the assistant director for uh transportation planning. So, he's my counterpart. So, I do the planning, he does the transportation. So, uh I I'll defer to Mr. Krisky's comment.

Yes, I do. Is it I just give you one moment. I think I'll be able to answer your question with one of the exhibits.

Okay. Good evening again, Chair Wixs and members of the commission. Um, so to answer your question about major transit stop, uh, I would like to refer you to, uh, exhibit F10 of the December 8th staff report, uh, and you'll see a map showing the major transit stops in the city and the halfmile buffer around them. Um, and essentially there's another part of state law that defines major transit stops, but it's generally um either rail stations or the intersection of uh two bus routes that have a certain amount of frequency, 15 or 20 minutes. Um, that is the definition of major transit stop. And so that map on exhibit F10 shows those stops for Burbank. You can see uh the star on that map shows the project location and it is outside of the the boundary of qualifying as being within a half mile of a major transit stop.

Okay. And then on the opposite side of the Burbank Glendo border like that's all rancho. It doesn't seem like it it densely excuse me uh not dense residential. We can't expect there to be another major transit stop on the other side. That's just not accounted on this map. Yeah. Um that that part of the city quite frankly is not transit rich at all. um very there's a one bus line, one metro bus line that is um maybe half hourly or hourly and then Glendale has some service just over the border but it is not within that area.

Okay. Um I have one more question. Um, in state ADU law, um, uh, oh gosh. Um, you are pro, uh, you you're provided certain extra allowances, um, if you do not offer parking permits to a multif family building. Um, like you you're afforded less parking requirements. Um, as a multif family developer, if you create a multif family building in a uh in a permit parking area and do not offer permits to uh the residents, um what is the procedure for permitting a street? Because most of the problems that we like every single person that came up to speak today spoke about parking being a major issue. How do we permit the area?

Uh so yes, I can answer that question. Um, I also manage the city's parking programs. And just to be clear, um, this project does not have anything to do with those state law issues regarding ADUs and permit parking. So, it doesn't apply to this, but for your information, the city generally permits uh allows streets to have permit parking with two processes. There's a uh resident initiated process and then there's a city council initiated process. The resident uh initiated process is defined in our municipal code u title six and it basically without going into the details it basically requires residents of that street to circulate a petition uh showing uh support for implementing permit parking. Uh then that's step one. Step two is then the city does a study to determine if the parking is actually impacted and particularly is impacted by non-resident vehicles. And then step three, if you meet a certain criteria for the amount of uh impacted parking, uh we either impose a two-hour permit parking restriction, so two-hour parking except by permit, or if we have a higher level of uh demand, then uh we set a hearing before the transportation commission where they can consider implementing permit only parking. So that's the s the citizen or resident initiated process. What we have also done uh in the city is the council will receive um information or requests from a neighborhood. Uh usually it's it's generated by an external factor like an external development. The most recent example of this would be the raising canes uh project several years ago. In that case, the city council um implemented a permit only parking zone for a particular neighborhood and implemented it themselves. So those are the two ways that you can do permit only parking uh get permit only parking for your street.

Thank you. We must be on the same wavelength because I was thinking about that as was that a question or a deliberate it's a question is would that be appropriate in in this discussion that we're having

if if I'm understanding you commissioner Mendes is are you asking uh to condition a project on uh permit parking is that what you're the reason I say that is that the the that issue has more to do with the conditions of the neighborhood than it does the individual project. The way we've determined based on the parameters of state law and our standards is that the project if it meets those requirements would be allowed to be built if the result of that is that there's a concern from the community to want to establish parking standards as Mr. Krisky noted or uh the other alternative is the council determining that they want to look at permit parking then then that would be a separate vehicle but it wouldn't be a condition on the I I wouldn't recommend you condition it on the project but it could be something that the community if they feel concerned with parking impacts that they could look into the requirements in our code to establish that.

So would that be a separate agenda item for something? Uh we wouldn't have to agendaize it. It's basically an action that the community can undertake directly in that neighborhood. Um or uh that could be referred to the elected officials, the council. Yeah. But it wouldn't be you wouldn't be looking at a parking permit program here. No. No. Yeah. But how would how would how could we help that problem? And I'm asking is it you know I don't want it to be contingent on the project.

No, no, no. It's so the fact that you're bringing it up is something that as Mr. Mr. Krisky noted there's a process that members of the community that are present can undertake. They can follow up with us and and Mr. Krisky team about you know what the process would undertake and um of course uh elected officials also watch planning commission meetings and if they feel that they want to uh look into that further they can also do that as well. So and advocacy. So if you wanted to individually uh bring that up to elected officials you can do that as well but but it wouldn't be part of the project. Yeah, thank you. Any further questions for staff?

You're good. I think I'm good. I didn't mean to say it like that. There's there's a lot. There's over three places. Commissioner Bendes. Yes, there's there's definitely a lot here. So, I just want to make sure that everybody has asked their questions for staff. Okay. All right. I now declare the public hearing closed and the planning commission will now deliberate. This is the time for the commission to decide whether we will affirm, reverse, and modify the director's conditional project approval. What is the planning commission's pleasure?

I'm I'm trying to be polite. I feel like I'm taking up everybody's time here. No, please. This look, this is this is a public hearing and obviously this is very strong attendance and so the public deserves all of our thought processes.

Um I first want to commend everybody for coming out today. Um I live just outside the zone um that's uh we're not supposed to talk about these issues. I'm at Alama and well I'm at uh West Elm West Elm Court on the north side. So right up into the the the five freeway. Um I have walked like I when I walk my dog uh with my with my girls seven and three years old. Um their favorite spot is the five kitty cat bonanza. Um that are those are those are stray stray cats. All right.

Okay. Sorry. Sorry. Um but I mean I'm familiar with the area. I'm familiar with the parking challenges. Um a lot of the parking overflow happens on my street which is you know two or three uh blocks away. Um and it my first thought when we started talking about this was um this is an area that needs to be permitted. Um because every person that came to here to speak had had very valid concerns about had very valid concerns about parking um and you know emergency access being the other side of that. Um so I'm sure that uh the community as strong and wellorganized as it is will probably be able to put something together and continue having that conversation with elected officials and the city in general. Um, I very much accept the concerns that's coming from uh our our fire professionals. Um, I work for the state of California in the housing uh accountability enforcement unit. Um, and our first concern is fire. Um, now I will say very recently with the Altadena fires, um, when in that windstorm I had a a power cable fall onto my house. Um, we lost a tree. It was terrifying. Um, but when you create a new multifamily building, you create it to the most modern standards. Um, and there were buildings in Altadena that were built to like the most up-to-date uh um fire uh requirements that ended up being fire breaks um that prevented the march of the destruction down south uh through Aladena. Um, so given all that, um, when I hear the, uh, our fire professionals say that they don't see a way to safely administer anything short of a two-story building,

like I I accept that. Um I I don't see how um given with the uh um the vehicle miles traveled uh calculate the conversation um I also accept staff's presentation um and the conversation that that took place between um uh our staff and the consultant and then the second consultant. Um I I I I don't see a path to 75 units at all. Um yeah, that said, um the maximum the buy right and then uh uh getting the most amount of units possible um with the state density bonus law. That's that's sort of an idea that came from our staff. Um, I certainly hope that the respondent would consider that because we do need I think we're short of 3,000 units uh uh lowinccome and very low-income units in the city. I think it's 3,700 units actually. Um, statewide we're short a million units. Um, so every every neighborhood should have some development. Um but that said um there is another project in the area um on on lake which does have different uh um does have different conditions on the ground. They are going for three units. There were no problems um in terms of there was no hangup. I went to that hearing um and was surprised that they that they limited it to three given the need for housing uh in this city. Um, but I mean just one more thing as as as someone that has a young family I'm really sensitive to. I want everyone people who come in and say like I've been here for 2 years. I've been here for 40 years. Like everybody deserves

this city. It's beautiful. Um, and I hope that we'll consider the new families that will hopefully be given the opportunity uh to move in. um should there be another project moving forward. Um but that said, yeah, I I think I absolutely accept staff's uh report and I would uh I would encourage um that we adopt their their proposal. Okay. any further commission anybody else making a proposal or well I mean I want let's deliberate first because I this is a big issue so the public deserves to

hear well I'm I concur with you no you need you have before move it closer yeah okay

sorry um I'm very concerned about this project I was not familiar with uh the street or the location and I drove out there uh before the first hearing and I just in mentally, you know, just made some conclusions and I was really stunned uh at the concerns the community had because it was exactly the uh the concerns that I have and again we're at a we need the affordable housing but at what price will this you know what will happen if you know are we creating a hazard for the city and for its residents that's really my concern um and for me I saw there was a lot of development which shocked me and um they are not exaggerating because I try to because I like to you know look at a project. I like to get out. I like to walk around regardless of the size of the project. And I couldn't, you know, so even though uh, you know, the fire chiefs, you know, the the fire department is saying, "Yeah, we can do this and we can do that." Well, maybe in the back, but the way I saw cars parked on the driveway, you know, I I couldn't even get out, you know, I was afraid if I get out, I might get hit because there's just no space there. So, um I I'm very concerned about this project and uh it's a very difficult decision.

Okay. Commissioner Bennett, I keep my comments brief. Um, they can be as brief or not brief as you want.

I will choose to keep them brief. Um, I will just say that I think that the weight of the the weight of the evidence is probably on the city's vehicle model and that shortcircuits I think the rest of the discussion. So, Okay, you were brief. Um, I'll I'll say that I concur with Commissioner Van Gorder and Commissioner Mendes in that I I've driven past the property. I like Commissioner Mendes, I'm sure I do site visits for every single project and I did probably about a half a dozen visits to this site. So, before December 8th, after December 8th, I'm actually surprised nobody called the police on me for like being a creeper. Um, no, but I I will say that I I drive a a small SUV and I had a very hard time turning around and so I concur that a fire apparatus would be very very difficult to turn around. Um, with that being said, I like Commissioner Van Gorder, I understand we need housing. I'm very well aware of our arena numbers. I'm very, very well aware of state housing law. And so I won't necessarily get into, you know, my personal preferences in terms of whether it should be 11 units, you know, with a density bonus versus six units by right. I mean, especially without any plans that especially without any plans. I I don't want to get into the weeds about that. Um, but I I will say that I um

I I don't see a path forward with 75 units either. I And again, I'm I'm alarmed at the transportation study that had errors in it, especially with a with a transportation firm that the applicants never used before. I think that I would think that one would for this kind of decision, one would use a firm that they've used before. Um, but and as far as the fire department, thank you to the fire department for being here, for answering all of our questions. I think that that was very, very helpful and I think that we're all taking this as a public safety very, very seriously. Um you know we are just a year from the eaten fire and my biggest takeaway was with Altadena um that it's Altadena is very similar to Burbank and I would not want Altadena to happen to Burbank and so thank you and so thank you to everyone because I'm taking the fire concern very very seriously here. Commissioner Vang Gorder.

Yeah. Um I don't expect the eat and fire to happen in this neighborhood. Um I it's um we don't abut the you know the that hill that fed the eaten fire. Um, but I mean at any rate that alley in its best condition is not accessible for a major uh like hook and ladder type situation. Um, and it's very rarely in its best condition. Like I said, I walk my my dog and take my girls around in the wagon all the time. Um, and I there are always cars there. there's just no way to get um a full fire apparatus um with the height that um the the appellent is requesting. Um yes. Um if there are no other comments, I'd like to make a motion to uphold the director's decision.

Would you mind reading it in full? Okay. I have so many documents in front of me. How do I do that? Is it Where is it? Is it here? Exhibit A of um either report or also the PowerPoint last uh slide 11 12 I believe. How about slide 29 on the older one? Is that the 10?

This is so much paper you guys. Um okay. So, I would like to propose a motion to adopt a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Burbank denying an appeal of the city of Burbank community development director's decision to approve, as conditioned, a development review and density bonus application and conditionally approve a development review and density bonus project that allows for the construction of an 11 unit residential development at 257 West Lynen Avenue. Would you say would you say up up to Yeah. Okay. uh for the construction of an up to 11 unit residential development at 257 West London and this is project number 25-00002550.

I trust you. Yes. Okay. All right. We have a motion. I second it. All right. We have a motion. Any We have a second. Is there any further discussion from planning commission members? No. No. All right. Madame clerk, may we have a roll call, please? Chair Wick. Yes. Commissioner Van Gorder. Yes. Commissioner Bennett. Yes. And Commissioner Mendes. Yes. Motion passes. Great. Right. Thank you very much. Right. Where are we?

All right. Uh now is the time for reports from city staff. Do we have any further reports? Uh, chair, no report, no additional reports from city staff. Great. Thank you so much. All right. Now is the time for approval of the minutes from the December 8th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Are there any questions, comments, andor a motion? Chair correction. Uh, for the December 8th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Oh, you caught me reading off the script. 2025. Motion motion to approve those minutes, please. From December 8th, 2025.

December 8th, 2025. Please and thank you. And I will second the motion. All right. U Madam Clerk, may we have a roll call, please? Chair Wick, yes. Commissioner Vanguard, yes. Commissioner Bennett, yes. Commissioner Mendes, yes. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you. Great. Thank you so much. Um, chair, if I if I can just um if we I know that there's someone that has limited access, so we want to make sure they get out. I figure maybe we should just give it a couple minutes to Yeah, if we can just for um as people are exiting the meeting, we we still have a meeting to conduct. If you'd like to have a conversation, if you can do it outside of the chambers, we'd really appreciate it. Thank you very much. It's okay. That's all right.

This is exhilarating. You guys don't want to stay. And thank you guys. Thank you. All right. Now is the time for introduction of additional agenda items. Planning commission members may introduce new items for discussion, but no action may take place except to place the item on a future agenda. Do members of the commission have any items to introduce? No. No.

Okay. Now is the time for city planner comments? Are there any comments from city planning staff? Um I'll make one general and thank you for um your patience in this effort and know it's a continued meeting but all the deliberation and everything discussion that you had was very important and relevant um and uh this decision was basically the conclusion of this process as far as our due process within the city. So we'll see whether we get a submitting an application or what other actions are taken by the applicant. Um, so, um, thank you for that and thank you for the deliberation and thank you for all the questions that you asked. They were all very important and relevant. Uh, and hopefully that process helped inform you so that you could make the decision that needed to be made. So, thank you very much.

Great. Thank you so much. We will now adjourn to the planning commission meeting on Monday, January 26th, 2026 at 6 p.m. This meeting will be held in person in the city council chambers at 275 East Olive Avenue. The public is invited to attend the meeting in person or to view the meeting online or on television. The public will be able to provide public comment in the following three ways. In person at the appropriate time during the meeting, by leaving an e comment on the city's web page, www. burbankca.go GV/events or by calling indirectly to the planning commission meeting at 818-238-3335. Thank you for your participation and have a good night.