Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. [music] [music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. N. [music]

[music]

Hey, [music] [music] [music] hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N. [music] [music] Heat. [music] [music] Heat. [music] Heat. Heat.

[music] [music] Heat. Heat. [music] Heat. [music] Heat. [music]

[music] [music]

Good evening and welcome to the Monday, December 8th, 2025 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 present a completed speaker card to the planning staff. If you would like to participate in the public comment period by telephone, please call 818238-3335. 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 and 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 respon we will always act responsibly for the betterment of Burbank. Will everyone please join us in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge alce 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.

Thank you. Madame clerk, may we please have a role? Chair Wick, present. Vice Chair Safarian, present. Commissioner Van Gorder present. Commissioner Bennett, I'm here. And Commissioner Mendes here. Great. Do we have any announcements from city staff? We do, Chair. Um if the uh city attorney, Mrs. Lisa Kurhar, would like to make an announcement and then we'll follow up.

Good evening, commissioners. Um earlier today, a member of the public requested to provide public comment at the beginning of the meeting rather than at the end of the meeting. I just do want to clarify that under government code 54954.3, we need to provide a public comment period either before or during any item which the commission considers. Tonight, each item that you are being asked to consider is during a public hearing. And the public hearing includes a public comment period, which is why the current format of the agenda does satisfy the Brown Act requirements. However, that said, it is within the chair's discretion to open public comment early if you would like and continue it to later in the evening to accommodate speakers who wish to discuss matters that are not on the agenda before other items of business come up tonight.

Okay. So if I'm understanding that correctly, we can open public comment now and or during the meeting or we can open public comment before the the agenda item and then we will open it again at the end in case and continue it continue it continue to take public comments at the end where it's agenda. So if the chair so desires and there's concurrence from the commission and maybe taking just a quick uh uh vote on that part, we can uh facilitate that at this juncture is to allow for public comments. Okay. And can this be a yay or nay vote or do we need to do I think that's fine. That works. We hear all the yays or or nays.

All right. [gasps] All right. Is that okay with everybody? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposition?

Great. All right. We will now move on to public comment. Let me just open it. Now is the time for oral communications from the public. Any person speaking during this period may address the commission on any matter concerning city business. 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 the planning division. For members of the public that wish to come in by telephone, please call 818-238-3335 to address the planning commission. Callers will be placed in the 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 caller callers on the line?

We have one speaker here tonight.

Okay, great. And then just just so the public is aware um what just happened here is we are again opening public comment. It will be continued later and there will be a public comment period during the hearing if you want to speak on the hearing. So just All right. The first public comment is from Joel Schlassman. Thank you for being accommodating to me. You know if I had a an item before the before before you folks. I would want all of you commissioners to be or board members, I would want you to be I would want you to obey the law and I'd want you to follow the rules and I would want you not to pick and choose which laws to follow. And what appears to me is uh one of you has done just that. So all of you and all of us, everybody who works for the city, I've signed this several times. It's an oath of or affirmation of allegiance for public employees, public officers and employees. This one happens to say, I, Mike Van Gorder, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic. and that I will bear truth, faith, and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Now, the problem is we've got Mr. Van Gorder making statements like this, and uh this is from the newspaper, and quote, "We do not want these lawless, unidentified, masked goons threatening our community," Van Gorder said. He is talking about federal law enforcement. He goes on to say, "It is absolutely

abhorrent that this fascist government fascist government thinks they can operate with absolute impunity that they can deny Americans their rights. It is just disgusting." Well, that's in contraition contravention to what he signed under oath here. He swore to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And we're talking about federal [snorts] agents doing their job. And the funny thing about this is he's quick to criticize law enforcement, but when he needs law enforcement, he's the very first one to call them over trivial matters. Now, these are public records. This is him calling for some trivial matter of somebody trifling with his Halloween decorations. And he's using this position, his position here on the board, and I'll quote his words again. Well, this is not his words. This is just it's what he said. Burbank resident Mike Van Gorder who said he has evolved into a spokesman a spokesman for the network because of his public role as a city planning commissioner. So, this is problematic to me. I wish I had five minutes instead of three. I wouldn't want him making any decisions because he interprets things in a bizarre way. He's uh he's disloyal. He He wants to pick and choose which laws to enforce. I wish I could do that, too, but I can't. It's terrible. Thank you. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any further public comment? No speakers or callers. Got it. I'm so sorry. I don't mean to interrupt at all. I just didn't know that I was supposed to turn this in, but I would love to speak if possible. Sure. Did you want to speak a general public comment or regarding the hearing tonight? Regarding the hearing. Okay. So, we will have a you you're more than welcome to speak now if you you know wanted to speak and leave, but it will not be it will be in the minutes, but it won't be in the public record. If you wanted to speak regarding the hearing, we'll have a section for general public for public comment, excuse me, during the hearing tonight regarding the hearing. Thank you. Okay.

All right. Is there anyone for general public comment? Okay. And there's nobody on the phone line. No callers. Okay. So, I will go ahead and close public comment for now. It will be continued at the end. Do we have any more announcements from city staff tonight? Uh, no further announcements.

Okay. Got it. All right. So, we'll move on to item number F, which is the public hearing. Now is the time and place for the public hearing of project number 25-00002550, 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 Avenue and the planning commission's consideration of the underlying project under Burbank Municipal Code sections 10-1-19 907.1 and 1 1907.2. This hearing is an independent re-examination of the underlying project application. At the end of the 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 interests relating to this hearing?

No. No. That that's a no from everyone. Okay. Have any planning commission members had any communications including written or oral with any person regarding this project? No. No. No. No. That's a no from everyone. Mr. Ramirez, have the notices as required by law been given? Uh, yes, they have. Ch. Are there any written communications on this matter? Yes. Uh there were some included in your attachment. There were others sent electronically. And then most recently the uh appellant provided a um a cover letter as well as a packet of information for your review.

Got it. Which we did receive. Will the representative of the community development department please introduce yourself and summarize the matter for us? You will have a maximum time of 20 minutes to make your presentation.

Good evening chair and commissioners. Daniel Via, principal planner, presenting an appeal to the community development director's decision for a proposed development at 257 West Lynen Avenue. May I please have the presentation on the screen, please? Thank you. 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 from 244 to 362 ft. No vehicle parking was provided. However, 75 bicycle parking spaces were provided. 74 units were proposed as income restricted units. One of them would be a manager's unit. 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 California state density bonus law to justify unlimited density and zero parking. As we'll touch on later in the presentation, staff's determination is that the product does not qualify for those allowances under the state law. This is an aerial image showing the parcel and an image of the existing single family home currently on the site. The product site is approximately 9100 square ft and is 193 feet deep by 47.5 ft wide. The site is zoned R3 and has a general plan designation of medium density residential which allows up to six units by right on the site. These photos show the homes immediately adjacent to the project site. They are single story.

This slide shows a home directly across the street. The existing context consists mostly of singlestory and two-story residential structures. These are photos of Lynen Avenue toward the culdesac and looking in the opposite direction as well. These photos show the rear alley which ends at a dead end. It is between 18 and 20 feet in width. Several residential properties use the alley for vehicle access and to access vehicle parking. Utilities also run along that same alley. The city conducted an initial review of the application and deemed it complete for processing on May 30th, 2025. Following comprehensive review, the city identified inconsistencies with objective development standards, provisions of the state density bonus law, and public health and safety provisions in the California Fire Code. Specifically, the 75 unit project does not provide the required vehicle access for emergency vehicles such as fire engines with aerial firefighting apparatuses. City staff issued comment letters on July 10th and August 8th, 2025. The applicant elected not to revise a 75 unit proposal despite g being given multiple opportunities to address the identified inconsistencies. On September 5th, 2025, the community development director approved the project with conditions. These conditions require the product to be reduced to 11 units, comply with the California fire code and city standards, and submit revised plans addressing all specific adverse impacts to the public health and safety resulting because of inconsistencies with the California Fire Code, which was adopted into the Burbank Municipal Code. The director reduced the density of the

project from 75 units to 11 units because it does not qualify for limited density. does not qualify for zero parking, is inconsistent with emergency vehicle access requirements per the California Fire Code, and does not meet all objective city development standards. Under the Housing Accountability Act, a provision of state law applicable to housing projects, the director made findings supported by a prepoundonderance of evidence that the 75 unit project would create a specific adverse impact upon the public health and safety, resulting from inconsistencies with the California Fire Code. No feasible way existed to mitigate these impacts other than reducing the product's overall scale. The applicant appealed the director's decision on September 11, 2025, asserting the director unlawfully reduced the product's density from 75 to 11 units. The appeal includes several points identified on the slide. These points generally generally touched on a limited density, zero parking, fire access, and state housing laws. Staff's analysis of the appeal and supporting materials concludes that the product still does not qualify for limited density or zero parking and that the 75 unit structure would still result in specific adverse impacts. To qualify for limited density, the project must be located in a very low vehicle travel area as defined in the California density bonus law. Based on the city's evaluation, the product does not meet that criteria. project site does not meet that criteria. For commissioner, for the commissioner's reference, very low vehicle travel area is defined in the government code as an urbanized area where the existing residential development generates vehicles miles traveled per capita that is below 85% of regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. If commission if commissioners want to understand this

better, a representative of our transportation division is available to break it down further during Q&A. The product also does not qualify for zero parking. It is located it is not located within a 1 half mile of a major transit stop, is not senior housing, and is not supportive or special needs housing. Further, the proposed 75 unit building still fails to comply with emergency vehicle access routes as required by the California fire code. As proposed, the 75 unit project is required to provide two 26 ft emergency vehicle access routes. The project only provides one, which is along the street, Lynden Avenue. The second fire code compliant emergency vehicle access route has not been provided. The applicant proposed using the 18 to 20 foot wide alley as a second emergency vehicle access route, but the fire department determined this is not feasible. The fire marshall reviewed the applicant's request to use the alley as an emergency vehicle access route, examined applicable fire access requirements, and conducted an on-site evaluation. Their analysis concluded that the alley cannot function as an emergency vehicle access road. These images show the fire department's attempt to maneuver a fire engine through the alley. The fire engine was unable to access or position effectively due to width constraints and parked vehicles obstructing access. The alley is again between 18 to 20 ft wide. The fire marshall as well as fire chief are here and available to provide additional information should the commissioners have any questions. And this image shows overhead utilities running along the alley. They prevent safe and effective deployment of an aerial ladder. And again, the fire marshall as well as fire chief are here and available to provide additional information should the commission have further questions. Based on the administrative record, staff finds no basis to overturn or

modify the director's decision. The director's findings are fully supported by objective evidence. The 11-unit project qualifies for the California Environmental Quality Act class 32 infill exemption. A 75 unit project would require additional analysis that's more robust and complying with SQA. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the resolution denying the appeal and upholding the director decision as as conditioned approving an 11 unit project at 257 West Lindon Lynon Avenue. This concludes T's presentation. staff including myself, the fire team as well as the transportation team are available should you have any questions. Thank you.

Great. Thank you so much. I will now invite the appellant or their representative to address the planning commission. You will have a maximum time of 20 minutes to make your presentation tonight.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Um, prior to the meeting, I passed out some uh paperwork. I I'm assuming you all got that. Yes. Um, my name is Saman, architect and applicant for the 100% affordable housing project proposed for 257 West Lynen Avenue. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I want to focus on the core issue before you. The director's decision to reduce the project from 75 units to 11 units. Because staff believed the site did not qualify as a low vehicle miles traveled area or low VMT area. We now know that this conclusion was based on older data and is no longer correct. To briefly explain, vehicle miles traveled is a measure of how people typically drive in a given neighborhood. Some areas naturally generate much less uh driving because of jobs, services, and amenities are close by. State law designates these locations as low VMT areas and encourages affordable housing there because residents live less, drive less, which reduces traffic and emissions. When we first submitted the project, the city relied on screening uh tool called help R, which uses older 2019 SCAG data. SCAG is Southern California Association of Governments. Uh that tool showed the site at about 85.7% of the regional VMT average. The qualifying threshold is 85%. So we were 7% above the cutoff, a fraction that can easily shift with updated regional data.

After the direction director's decision, we we retained a transportation consultant called ITRUS, a nationally respected transportation modeling firm that worked directly with the Southern California Association of Governments, CALR, and the Federal Highway Administration. Idris evaluated our site using SCAG's most current 2024 regional model which is the data set cities are required to use for VMT determinations. With the updated model, the results were not even close. The project site generates roughly 35% VMT, less VMT than the regional average. That places it at approximately 65% of the regional average, far below the 85% threshold required by law. So the initial near miss was simply the result of older data. Using the correct data set, the site clearly and decisively qualifies as low VMT area. Once a project is 100% affordable and located in a low VMT area, state density bonus law requires approval of the project at the proposed density. Unlimited density and zero parking are mandatory provisions. These are not discretionary choices. This also is there is also the housing accountability act which prohibits the city from reducing the project's density unless it identifies a specific quantifiable unavoidable health or safety impact with no feasible mitigation. In our opinion, that standard has not been met. Much of the staff report focuses on fire access. Fire safety is extremely important and we fully expect to meet all of this California fire code. But fire access on

infill lots is routinely addressed during plan check through objective solutions such as fire lane adjustments, alley improvements, enhanced sprinkler standpipe systems, apparatus routing alternatives. These are technical design refinements, not legal grounds to reduce the density before approval. It's also essential to remember that Burbank has a significant shortage of affordable housing and is far behind its regional housing needs assessment or RHNA targets. This project provides 75 affordable homes which would meaningfully advance the city's housing element goals with the updated SCAG data and certified iter analysis. The basis for 11 unit reduction no longer exists. State law requires approval of the proposed density and fire access details will be resolved in plan check like any other multifamily project. For these reasons, we respectfully request the commission to grant the appeal, recognize the site's low VMT status, and approve the project at 75 units as required by state housing law. Thank you very much. [clears throat]

You have any questions? I'll be happy to answer them. I'm sure we will. I'm sure we will.

All right. Would the representative of the community development department like to make Oh, wait. I am so sorry. We're moving on to We will now open the meeting to hear from any persons who wish to speak on this 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 by telephone, please call 818-238-3335 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 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?

We do have speakers, but no callers. Okay, Madam City attorney, do we typically do inerson speakers or callers first? I believe we do in person. Okay, got it. That's what I thought. Just just want to double check. I didn't. All right. The first speaker is Joel Joel Schlashman. And this is on the hearing item, correct?

You know, uh I'm somewhat familiar with this neighborhood. 40 years ago, I built uh a five-unit building across the street there on Lyndon, 266 West London specifically. So naturally, you know, speaking, I've never spoke against a development in my life. I'm pro-development, but these guys are greedy and they're past greedy. They're insane. So, [applause] I maximized my lot and it was five units and I went semi semi-ubter subterranean to lower the height. garages, three bedroomedroom, two bath condos, the biggest I could build, but it was five units. So, 11 units there. The city's offering 11 units. That's very generous. I don't know if it's the same exact size lot or not, but man oh man, I would have been happy with 11 units. I know times change and there's greater density. I'm aware of that. I don't know if you folks are aware, but there's a double alley behind the property you're talking about. There's an intersecting alley if you come off of Lake Street. And what's worse is it's a blind alley. And every time I went down that alley, I was always worried about being t-boned because you simply can't see. You have to a smart person would stop and creep forward and look. So, you're going to have a lot of problems in that aspect as well because it's kind of rare to have an intersecting alley. That's one thing. The dead ends are very problematic and that's a lot of vehicles on that street. So, you know, it's just craziness to even consider this. I hope you'll shut this thing down and let them build their 11 units. And if they're not happy with the 11 units, go find another lot and build

your 75 units on a bigger lot that's more suitable. This is not the place. That's all I have to say. [applause] Thank you. Our next speaker is Camilo de Massie. [snorts] And I apologize if I butchered your name.

Oh, no, it's fine. It's Camilo Damasi. Um, I own the house at uh 261 West London, right adjacent from 257 West London. I mean, I I it's just crazy to me that even 11 units is going to be allowed. There's absolutely no room there. I mean, we have to fight for parking every day. By 5:00, there's absolutely no parking. You can't even go down the block cuz there's cars blocking the street. I mean, it's it's a constant maze. I have four other neighbors that were that wanted to come here, but they can't because of work. I mean, I I I walked around the neighborhood. And I mean, everyone thinks it's it's absolutely ludicrous. Um, I owned a property two blocks away from there right on Victory. I I literally have vehicles parked over there cuz I can't I only have a two two driveway lot. If you if you look at it, Jason, it makes absolutely no sense. I mean, it's there's no way you could have that kind of I mean, it's under 10,000 square feet. My my property that is a single family single family home. I just live there with my wife. I mean, I can't even imagine living, you know, there's no way you could fit even 11 units in there. You can't build a there's no way to build a drive, no parking. I mean, it it it's so frustrating. I, you know, I I don't want to get driven from the neighborhood. I was born and raised in Burbank. I went to St. Roberts. I went to Burbank High. I went to John Mir Middle School. I was born and raised here. I I grew up right up on the hill and everything. I bought my first house. My mom passed away just a year ago. She helped me buy my first house here. My My whole family lives here. My grandparents were born and raised here. I've I I I never even thought this would ever be an option. I mean, when you come I moved specifically into the rancho district cuz I love horses. Um, I have, like I said, I have a a property, a commercial property two blocks away where I park all my commercial vehicles. Um, any anything I I work from there two blocks away. It's the greatest thing. I could I could walk to work and there's still no parking. Also, the other thing all along Victory Boulevard from Allen all the way

to to Alamita, they they installed the, you know, uh, no more parking from 3:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m., which I think was the greatest decision because we'd have trucks, semi-truckss parked there. I mean, you it even the parking even got worse. I mean, there's absolutely no way you could fit that. I mean, you know, Burbank, we moved here and we want to be here because it's a great neighborhood. I want to raise my kids here. Uh, I'm getting married next year. I mean, we're we're ready to have kids and everything. This is the reason I bought the house. This is the reason my mother, my father, they helped us, you know, stay here. We we, you know, my parents still live up up on the hill, except, you know, my mom and, you know, unfortunately passed away, but she's still with us, you know, in spirit and everything. I still go to church here at St. Roberts, Bellereman, you know, um I have my business here in Burbank. I mean, I I do everything here in Burbank and I want to be part of Burbank. I don't want to get driven from the neighborhood. If you know, if this gets approved, I I'm definitely going to have to sell my property. I'm definitely going to get driven from the neighborhood. I don't want to I'm not going to I mean, think about it and I want you guys to really feel it in your hearts. Would you want a massive building right next to your single family house that you you work so hard? And that's all I have to say. Thank you guys so much and I really appreciate you guys see it my way please. Thank you.

Thank you for coming out. [applause] Our next speaker is Leonardo. I'm sorry I'm having problems reading your handwriting. Not Greco. I'm sorry. Not.

Hi. Good evening. Uh folks, um I was just listening to the gentleman saying that they hired a a company to come and take a look at how traffic works there. I think you don't need a company. Go stand there 2 hours. That's all I ask you. Just stay sit in the culde-sac 2 hours. See how much traffic goes through there. How people fight and struggle to get in and out of the of of that street. The the alleys are always packed with cars and vehicles. There is so much traffic going in and out of that uh of that street that it's it's insane to the point that people are so accustomed to being going in and out of there that the whole culdeac has been used as a dump site. If you don't believe that look at the city how many times people are have we have to call and see people have come in in the middle of the night dumped stuff there. Um there's no parking. They'll park on the culdeac itself. They'll even, you know, people the Amazon trucks go come and park there. There's absolutely no no conceivable way that they can tell come and tell us now that there's no density in parking or problems there. Absolutely insane that there's the there there's problems with the traffic. It's very narrow. Cars park on both sides. And to go there, there is no way to do a U-turn at all. You have to go in and out of people's driveways. Um, I live next door uh to to the where the proposed building is going to be. Do you know how many times I've come to try to get into the into the parking and people have just decided to leave their car there and some guy will come with the Uber or or not Uber the the Door Dash. They'll just park their car in front of the driveway. You have to sit there and wait for them. If there's ever an emergency, a serious emergency, and you have all of these people's cars parked there, what do you do? Do you call the police and while the police is screwing around trying to find out who owns the car, you have an emergency?

That's that's for real that's going down. So, I just ask you people to really realistically don't listen to all the nonsense that we have all this all this data. That's BS. Go there, sit there for 1 hour. That's all I ask you. take your car, sit there for an hour, any time of the day or night, and see how insane it is the to even think that these people can get 11 11 uh units there additional with all of the parking lots there. I've [clears throat] known people there that have sold cars and trucks because they just don't know where to what to do with them, where to park them. So, I ask you people to please look at this objectively. Don't get don't get uh fooled by all this nonsense data that they hired someone. You don't need to hire anybody. All you need to do is just go there and sit there for an hour and that's all and that's all you need. And you'll find out within 30 minutes you'll see how totally insane what they just said is about no not having any parking problems there at all. Thank you so very much.

Thank you. [applause] The next The next speaker is Brian Hernandez. Good evening everybody. I just want to I have a a paper here that I wanted to show everyone that this is the current parking on Lynen Avenue and this is all types of times during the day.

Could you actually just move a little bit closer to the microphone just so this is all times during the day. There is no parking anywhere. And if you want parking, you'd have to go to the street over Allen Avenue. Half the time you have to park either halfway up the street and if not, you have to park under the bridge farther up Allen near Flower. And to get in and out is terrible. It is. There's no space for anybody. And And we moved to Burbank cuz it's it's Burbank. It's a beautiful city. You come here cuz it's the the the the town of of movies, shows, and all that. And you guys want to put I thought 75 units was crazy. And it is absolutely crazy. But to put 11 even then is is nonsense. There would be nothing. There'd be nobody for the people that live there. There'd be nowhere to park. And it doesn't make any sense. Thank you guys.

Thank you so much. [applause] Um our next speaker is L. Egodio. I'm sorry I'm having trouble reading everybody's hand.

That's okay. It's [laughter] a GDO. No worries at all. Um, hi everyone. My name is L. I also live next door to the supposed uh 11 units. I would like to piggyback off of that uh parking unit. I also have I mean we all have come together as a community, everyone on the street because we also have no parking. Uh, I mean, you really do have to go next streets over and this is without the 11 units. This is currently and I'd like to elaborate on that. Um, my father died a couple months ago, actually two months ago, and I had to take in his senior dog. And so when I walk her around, there is broken glass. There's uh furniture leaving on the street from all the apartments that are currently there on the street. It's already so hard for garbage trucks, Amazon trucks, even myself to get into my own driveway. And I'm a home homeowner and I can't even get in. Um, it's been havoc the past couple years just living on that street without these apartment units. And I think that I and I live next door. Not only am I trying to get pregnant uh within the next year with my husband, we cannot even fathom uh having an apartment right next to us with all the construction. First of all, the current owners that own the property next door, we've reached out to them multiple times to fix the fence because it's broken on their side. I get uh dogs into my yard that come into my yard trying to bite me from the alley. I get uh people like teenagers graffitiing trying to come into my backyard and that's without the apartments. We've uh reached out to the homeowners multiple times to try and fix the fence. No response, no reply, not even a decency of hello. We've tried talking to the neighbors next door. No decency. Um the apartments next door would absolutely not only destruct the parking but the integrity of the neighborhood. Again, to

piggy back off of that, we moved to Burbank because it's such a great city. I mean, it's fantastic. And I'm just so sad to see it go downhill. The 11 units, first of all, there's no space. You're saying that there's no parking being provided. As shown in the photos, I'd be happy to leave them with you. There's already no parking provided. I'm a homeowner. I have my own driveway. Between my fiance and I's car and everyone on the street, we have to park two streets over. And that's without these 11 units. I can't even imagine. There's carjackings on Victory. There's there's issues coming about in Burbank. I I've seen graffiti issues that we're trying to tackle that the police is really trying to take advantage of and and um do better for the city. And I just feel that yes, lower income housing is great. However, for those that have worked so hard for their house and just want other families, the whole reason why we moved here is because there are families, there are children, there are dogs. It's a great neighborhood. It's a great neighborhood to raise a family with construction, let alone them not even fixing the fence. It's just Sorry. It's just horrible. I deeply oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. [applause] Our next speaker is Victiana Menddees.

Hello. So my name is Virana Mendes and I actually um been living in my children my parents' home. So um we've lived there many many years. So you know I came back to that um area and um I agree with them. Um I I don't know what studies or whatever studies you have you I have videos too of the situation. It is we are we already in an impacted area that when which in behind us with all those alleys there's homes upon homes. I don't know how city planning because there's some that are falling in there and it's impacted. So I don't understand why this site was even considered. I think there should be another site that is more it's a better um place for them for their 75 units or even the 11 units. Um the parking situation what they're saying it is every day it's a very narrow street. Let's start with that. The street is narrow. It's a dead end. It's one house before the dead end. the alley is narrow in the back and you have several alleys with these um very impacted uh apartments and homes. what they're saying. I see I live in the corner of, you know, Lake and Lyndon and I've seen people get into altercations because of the situation with parking and and I understand many of these lots were large at the time and um I don't have another ADUs or anything, but people did build their ADUs with no parking. So there's apartments that live there that have two bedrooms, three bedrooms with one parking spot, but there are six cars. Where would you put these people? There's people who walk blocks and blocks to park their car to just live in this neighborhood. That is this is not a

place for uh 75 or even 11 units. We are already impacted in that area. And I think as a community um I can see um many neighbors couldn't come but I can see them that they will try to fight this as much as they can you know if we have to get legal representation whatever it might need but it might have to get to that because there is no way that our community can have 75 or 11 with no parking that is ridiculous. I don't know what your thoughts are about this but it is it is a safety concern. There's children there, you know. Um it's too much traffic for a narrow street that is a dead end street. There's many other parts in Burbank that can have that. And I um don't know if it's because you know it's a lower income area. I don't know. But if that's the case and we you know I don't think it's right. Okay. So thank you very much for hear me and I hope that you consider these facts. Thank you. [applause] Thank you very much. Oh, by the way, I have videos of the street. So, if we if I can share them, I'll share them. [applause]

Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Alisa Hernandez. I don't speak much English. Then my son help me. [clears throat]

I lived at Lynen for 40 years. I bought in 1986. This is what he wants to bring to our city. You see the people double parked in the middle of the day. There's only enough parking for maybe two cars and then in total you have five people parking there in front of each other, behind each other, everywhere. This is this is downtown LA. And if he wants the permission double parked everywhere, there's sand parking. and they work outside in the street. the person who bought the house. I talked to the person that was fixing it and I asked him how he was good.

Are you going to fix the house? I work for somebody that buys homes. I have more than 10 years working with them. call me to for cheap estimate and I'll make him the apartments and then if he's a businessman we don't need it in Burbank because we don't need any more people 11 units and there's already no as someone said you can no longer park And before you go, there's no parking.

It's impossible to park as we used to after more and more apartments being built in Burbank. There's a threeun apartment down and there's no parking. It's incredible that they It's not a good idea to go there. If he bought the house for for this very reason to go somewhere else, he can do that anywhere else, just not here. He want if he wants to make a 15 unit 15 floor, that's fine. But in Burbank, we shouldn't have that. It was a lot more relaxed before and now they want to invade us and our houses are going to go down in value.

There's 14 lots there and 14 on the other side. All right. All right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you guys. Thank you. Thank you. [applause] Thank you so much. Um yeah, sorry to cut you off. We do just have a loted time for for speakers tonight. So, um I apologize for that. But, uh our next speaker is Joy Huerta.

Hi everyone. I've my parents have lived there for over 40 years and I myself have known the owners of the property they're talking about. We knew them for over 35 years and one of the sisters still lives in Burbank. They absolutely would not want to have a built like they're asking. What's really happening is that they're greedy. Why? Because they asked for 75 units and now they're saying, "Oh, we're not going to do 75 units because there's so much contradiction here. Let's do 11 units." When in reality, you guys should all be saying they should only be a max of four or five units there. As it was originally said for decades and decades, there's no one. They're not. They don't live there. Make it very, very clear. No, they don't live there. We live there and we've been living there for decades. And what I want to say is that they want to say, "Oh, it's affordable housing." Lynon already has a home that houses

[laughter]

um homeless families and youth. And we were happy to do it. Why? Because they did not recommend something ridiculous like this. Ridiculous. There is a reason why people there want to buy the houses there that only have a single family home. Most units there are single family or if they do have an extra unit, it's two to four units. I everyone has said their PS on four units and I'm so happy there was a business owner here and an investor here because I myself am an investor and I would never deviate from the norm of the neighborhood. This is not the norm. Not 75 units, not 11 units. They should be kept at four to five. This is just to make everyone feel better when they're like, "Oh, we didn't get 75 units. Let's just get 11." Let's not go there. We all know they're just lining their pockets. Second, I'm very happy that the fire department, the police department have some kind of representation here because if there is an emergency, their vehicles cannot make a U-turn, cannot get out. This is a dead end street and they're saying, "Oh, but then they can have access in that alley. If you go there, there is already a city of Burbank hotline because there's so much graffiti and trash there." Every single month there's there's apartment building owners that have to clear and and pay for their own painting because there's graffiti there. go and check it out. There is Transia there. I'm not saying there's a lot of crime there, but there are um there are crimes in regards to cars there. So, um I want to make sure that everyone knows that this is it's not them being kind. It's them trying to say, "Hey, it's 75 units. I'm going down to 11 just so 11 can be approved." 11 should not be approved. It's just an R3 area. That is how the the zoning is. the original business owner should I strongly oppose this. I will be happy to bring the original owner who was the original purchaser homeowner of when the when the actual neighborhood was being built and we ourselves are second we

were the second homeowners in that area and we also know other ones that are there. Second um there's a deviation from the neighborhood norm. We don't want that. Um, there is already a hotline for extra trash, extra graffiti and they shouldn't be doing this. Don't allow this to happen. Thank you so much. [applause] The next speaker is Maria Hernandez. Oh. Um, she opposes. She didn't want to come up in in

Got it. Thank you. I do see that that she wrote she opposed it. All right. Madam clerk, are there any further speaker cards? I have no more speaker cards or callers. No, I do not have You do not have any callers? I do not have any callers or speakers. Okay, we'll give it a minute for the callers. Um Okay,

chair, while we're waiting for that, um I just wanted to uh have the chair and the commission consider the following. And that is um as you're well aware, we did receive a packet of information about 2 minutes before the hearing was to begin. Um it's uh pretty voluminous. We there's a lot of information in there to kind of wait through and there's a lot of um point counterpoint rebuttals to it. So, uh, my request if if the chair and the commission were to consider is to, uh, since we have taken public comment, um, we could continue, uh, request that the that the project the hearing be continued to a date specific so that the staff has enough chance to review all this information that's been provided and ensure that we um, [clears throat] can thoroughly uh, communicate to you all that we've uh, reviewed everything and we can respond accordingly. to ensure that it's in conformance uh with the requirements of the code. Uh and if there's disagreement that we're able to also provide that to you so that you can then assess it. Um uh I think it's a little bit unfair to you all to um ask you to speedread something of this level of information. Uh and so uh it's not beyond the realm of possibility. In the past we have continued items where we need more time. If you concur with what I'm uh currently uh taking in myself personally by looking at the information that's in front of me, uh if you would be willing to consider uh voting to continue the item to a date specific and that would be in uh January, early January. Uh we'll get you the date specific. Uh, I would request that we do that and that we do it before we get into uh, rebuttal because staff needs to review this information to thoroughly uh, respond to the comments that were made by the appellant uh, as well as to also consider the feedback from the community

and incorporate that into where it where it warrants uh, as part of the responses back to you all. Then of course the applicant would get an opportunity to rebut. Um, so I'm that's what I'm requesting that you consider. Uh, if there's people on the phone that need to chime in, we take those comments. And then what I would suggest is in the continuence that we also continue the ability for the public to comment to this date specific in January. So just throwing it out there uh for the chair and the commission to entertain.

May I ask a quick question on that? As far as the continuing the public comment on this particular item, would members of the public who have commented before be able to comment again or since this is a continuence of the hearing? It's a very good question. Um, [laughter and snorts] I I would I would venture to say that at at this juncture, uh, if they come back, uh, they can provide that public input. if it's open and they fill out the speaker card, um I think it would be prudent for uh the commission to accept those comments as well.

Okay. Um yeah, I I personally I don't want to speak to the commission, so I'm willing to hear from the commission. I was a little bit alarmed to receive this 2 minutes before our meeting because, you know, as careful readers as we are, I don't really think it was fair and I don't think it's fair to staff to be able to [applause] to respond to comments this to to this. And even even with the the summary, it's there's a lot of information here. So, I I would support that. Um, do any of my other commissioners I concur?

Yeah, I I support everything that you just said. I don't think there's enough time to read all of this and this should have been given in advance. Um, and I agree with staff's recommendation. And will this be made available for the public as well? I'm assum and that's the other thing too. I just wanted to state that the that this is a public hearing, so the public deserves to hear to read everything if they so desire. And you know, if we haven't had the opportunity to read it, you haven't had the opportunity to read it. So, I would I would support that. And the public hearing will be at a later date in just want to make sure. I don't know if everybody's chimed in on on that approach if that makes sense to you all.

Um, I mean, I'm I'm fine with the idea of continuing the hearing, although if we're going to do that, I would like to continue it from this point in time and not rerun the entire hearing. If we were going to have a second round of public comment, we [clears throat] should have had this discussion an hour ago, I guess, would be my position. So, I would like to close public comment, continue the the item, and then pick it up where we left off without reopening public comment for the public hearing at the continuence. Sorry, I don't sorry. Please, please let

the commission is speaking right now. we can engage in a back and forth with the audience. Um,

I'll say to that, and I I think I've said this before, that, you know, I I've sat with you on this commission for about a year. I understand your your want and your need for fast, effective government. I I understand that, but I think that as much as and that's why I asked the question to the city attorney [clears throat] in terms of continuing the public comment. I just as much as I see your point, I do not think that that would do any service to the public to continue it from this point forward. I think that honestly that would just upset the public, upset the applicant for anybody who wishes to speak for the applicant. I I don't think that's fair and I think that'll be confusing. So, I I would support continuing it and and allowing public comment again.

Um I think it's reasonable to ask the folks that did speak tonight um if they do us the courtesy to uh keep their comments next time to a minute. We we can't engage with the public, sir. The courtesy. It would be nice to ask them the courtesy. We're we're here for the public, though. So, if the public wants to speak again and they want to speak for their three minutes, they can speak for their three minutes. This is something very very important in their neighborhood. And everybody deserves to be heard. Whether we like the project, oppose the project, the applicant deserves to be heard, everybody deserves to be heard.

Chair chair, if I may, I'm sorry. Uh chair, if I may, just just to kind of add a little bit of context. The other reason that I think you might want to consider allowing for the public to to add input at a subsequent meeting is that they've also not had a chance to review the information that was provided by the appellant. Typically, if all the information was available before the meeting with sufficient time for the staff to review and it was just an issue of of we need more time to wade through the information that everybody's seen, but they're commenting on the information that's been provided. It wasn't even handed out at the counter, you know, at the entry counter. It was given to us only. So, the public doesn't have the um benefit of reviewing the information. Uh nor nor have we. So, that's the only reason I would say just as you're discussing it that that be something that if the situation was different where the all the information was available, um I think that's a fruitful discussion that the Commissioner Bennett and Vangor are talking about. But I think beyond that I think to be consistent um I would suggest the staff as a leazison to the commission that one we not modify the time frames for public comment that we continue it and that we allow the public to get the benefit of this information. One it might actually benefit the appellant because if they've provided clarity in an issue that they that we disagree with the public will have the benefit of that as well. And secondly, if there's other things that need to be commented on in responses by staff, the public will have the benefit of hearing that as well. Uh, and so I think for those reasons, I would suggest in this particular instance with the situation in front of you and the fact we received information 2 minutes before that um that uh weigh into your consideration of a continuence both of the meeting and of the public comment period. slow.

Thank you for summarizing what Yeah, that [laughter] Thank you for that. And that brings up an excellent point that somebody may want to comment on something in this document that we haven't had a chance to review yet. Are there any further comments from the commission? [snorts] All right. Could we do we have a motion? I'd like to make a motion to continue this meeting. Okay. I second it. And chair, just to maybe modify your motion a bit, uh the date specific that we would be continuing to it would be uh January 12th, 2026. So, if you could uh if you want to include that as a friendly amendment to include the date specific, that would be awesome.

I'd like to make a motion to continue this meeting to January 12th, this hearing. Hearing I'd like to make a motion to continue this hearing. Yes, we're not staying here till January 12th on the status. I second that. Could we do uh um Cler, could we do a roll call vote? Uh Chair Wick, and I just I'm so sorry and I just want to verify the public will have the opportunity to speak with the motion. Okay, I'm getting a yes from Commissioner Van Gorder. Okay. Right. Um Chair Wick, yes. Vice Chair Safari, yes. Commissioner Van Gorder, yes. Commissioner Bennett, yes. And Commissioner Mendes, yes.

All right. Great. So, members of the public, this will be continued until January 12th um to give everybody an opportunity. This will be available for everybody to read. So, and you'll be able to call in if you don't want to come to the meeting, but your comments have been received and are on public record. Um and chair, just to add, um just for the public sake, we we'll also be sending out a notification again, okay? So that everybody receives it. the via mail. Okay, got it. Thank you so much. Um, excuse me. Am I allowed to ask a question real quick? We never received notice. We only learned from one neighbor.

That's That's not my question. Um, is it allowed to submit something two minutes prior to the meeting? That seems a little bit like snowballing to gain time. Was that allowed? Because we all that that's why we're continuing the meeting, but Okay. Yes. that that information we we're uh my apologies uh I know this is new for a lot of people. This is new this is new to a lot of people. We'll provide that information uh as soon as we it's made available to us. We'll make it available to you all. You have it in front of you right now. We we just received it right now. Um so we will make it available to the public. That's why the commission voted to continue the item to a date specific so that information could be provided for you in advance.

I'm so sorry, but we're all residents of this street. We took time out of our night. We took [clears throat] time off. They don't live here. We live here. Sorry. We're going to Yeah. So, we can't engage in the back and forth, but if you want to step outside Yeah. If you want to have communication, Yeah. you can just have staff will step outside. You can have a discussion with staff. Yeah. The staff, the project planner will step outside. We're not We're not allowed to have a back and forth with you and answer questions. As much as we would like to on this DAS, we we can't. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Um All right. staff. All right. So, this this is continued.

Do we need a minute for everybody or are we good? Uh, we're good. We continue. All right. Moving on. Sorry, I'm just finding where we are in the agenda. I apologize everyone. Reports to commission. Thank you. All right. Now is the time for reports from city staff. There are no reports to the commission. Is that what I'm reading? Okay. [snorts] All right. Moving on. And moving on to approval of minutes. Now is the time for the approval of the minutes from Oh, sorry. Um, we we said we would allow for oral communication on agenda as items at the end again. I'm sorry. I thought that was after the approval of minutes. I apologize. I'm not trying to

Oh, did we move it? It's on the agenda as oral communication then approval of minutes. Okay. So, if you want to allow I was just looking at this. I hear you. Sorry about that. All right. Now is the time for approval of minutes from the October 27th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Are there any questions, comments, and or a motion? I will move to approve the minutes as written. Second. All right. All those in favor of app approving the minutes, please say I. I. I. I.

Any opposed? Great. All right. So, now we're going back to general public comment period. Any person speaking during this period may address the commission on any matter concerning city business. Each person may address the planning commission for a maximum time of three minutes. For members of the public who wish to comment in person, please present a completed speaker card to the planning division. For members of the public that wish to comment by telephone, please call 818-238335 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 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. Madame clerk, do we have any speakers here tonight or callers on the line for public comment?

I have no speakers or callers. Okay. I have one in person.

Got it. So, sorry. I'm going to make it just so brief. Something that we're like really offended to by. I never got a yellow flyer about the meeting. None of us did. We just all found out about this because of the billboard and our neighbor just came to start talking to us. I mean, I had four other neighbors that wanted to come. I had to take time off of work just to come here. So, I'm just letting you know, none of us got notified. I I never got a I never got a letter about the meeting. I have I I absolutely got nothing if it wasn't for my neighbor just knocking on knocking on the door because I'm really close with the with his son and everything. Um I had no idea the the that there was even anything even going on. I just saw the I saw the billboard but I'm you know I'm so busy going back and forth from work uh that I didn't even I didn't even notice it. So, and a lot of neighbors when we told them when I when I just walking our dog or something just telling them that they're going to build 11 even 11 units there. I mean, their eyes opened. They were in total shock. So, I don't know if everybody within 1,000 ft got that. I live right next door and I didn't even get a letter or any kind of notice. I'm just letting you know that mail's not being delivered or we nobody got like proper notice. That's the only thing I'm kind of concerned about that other neighbors don't know what's actually. I mean, if you if you just spent like even 10 minutes on our block right now, there's no way you're going to find parking. Everything's going to be double parked. You got door dashes. I mean, I I know I know it's not the time or place. It's just we're all like kind of a little emotional. So, sorry, but thank you. I just wanted to let you guys know that that if we get proper notice and how can I access the packet if possible?

It's on the city's website. So, if if you want the It'll be like two or three days or something. No, it's on the city website already. Um Okay. Yeah. before you I think he's asking about this package. Yeah, I'll hang out. I'll hungry. Um, we'll get you the information. Thank you. That's it. Sorry. Thank you, guys. Okay. All right. Okay. Great. Thank you so much. Do we have any further public comments? No further public comment.

All right. There being no further public comment, I now declare the public comment period closed. 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 to except to place the item on a future agenda. Do members of the commission have any items to introduce? No. Okay. Nothing. Okay. Now is the time for city planner comments. Are there any comments from city planning staff?

Uh just just a general comment. I think it's warranted uh tonight. Um just I'm going to speak generally uh when it comes to information being provided to the public. Um so we we endeavor with the commission's assistance as well to put the information out as soon as it's readily available to us. Um this isn't there's been other instances where we get information right before a meeting. uh most of it's you know uh something we could wait through and provide comments but when the information is uh of such a large content and we want to make sure we're thoroughly analyzing we've we've made requests for uh continuences. So I I don't want the public to think this is um a one-off. It's more uh it's specific to the specifics of the project that are being considered and the information that's being provided. But we always always encourage the uh appellants or an applicant to provide the information um as soon as it's available in particular like when an item is coming to you and an applicant wants to include information for you to review. Uh I think you've seen it in the past where it's actually included in your packet. This was an instance where we didn't receive it until 2 minutes before. That's why we asked for the request. One last thing um just want to make sure we clarify. So the applicants uh in this particular case, this is a discretionary project uh submitt. So someone submitted something for us to review. Um and uh we don't control uh what an application submitt is. We just have to review it based on uh the specifics of it and then look at it from a standpoint of what the code allows. So uh I know it's a little confusing because there's a 75 unit project and a 11 unit project. So, anybody that's uh hasn't received the information, um if you hang out a little bit after the meeting, I'll I'll I'll wait around. I don't have a business card, but I'll give you my contact info and email. And then what we'll do is

we'll relay all this information. Most most of it's uh information before the hearing is readily available on the city's website if you go on to the agenda meeting notices. But just want to make sure that people are aware of that. Uh because sometimes it gets a little confusing. Uh uh generally speaking, we try to provide all the information ahead of the meeting. So you're well informed, the public's well informed before it comes, but we can't always control those situations and therefore um want to do thank you for uh taking that in consideration on the continuence and uh like I said, we'll be ready in January to provide all this information and the public is more than welcome to uh reach out to us and and we'll we'll try to provide as much information as is readily available. We will also confirm um we have a list of all the properties that got mailed notices. So if you want to come in and uh and just confirm that or let us know via email or phone if that your particular address is on that list, we'll confirm that as well. And if you're not, we'll make sure that it is on any update notification. So just wanted to make sure that was out there uh while trying to stay within the bounds of not discussing uh project specific stuff until we come back. But just want it for the sake of clarification on process. The way we typically do it, we we try to provide as much uh early notification as possible when we have the information available.

May I ask a general question on noticing? I see madam city attorney looking at me. I'm sorry. Don't worry, I will not discuss the project. With noticing, is it sent to the mailing addresses or the addresses or both? Um hopefully my staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it goes to the uh property owner and residents. Okay. So both both of them are supposed to receive it. Yeah.

Okay. Great. Thank you very much. All right. We will now adjourn to the planning commission on Monday, December 22nd, 2025 at 6 p.m. This meeting will be held in person 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 television. The public will be able to provide public comment the three in three following ways. In person at the appropriate time during the meeting by leaving an e comment on the city webpage www. burbankca.gov/ements by p and number three by calling indirectly to the planning commission meeting at 818-2383335. Thank you for your participation and have a good night.