City Council - Regular Meeting

To participate in the general public comment period, please call now at 818-238-3335. Speaking times will be determined by the total number of public comment cards and callers in the queue at the start of each public comment period. For 1 to 20 total speakers, each speaker will receive up to 3 minutes. For 21 to 39 total speakers, each speaker will receive up to two minutes. And for 40 plus total speakers, each speaker will receive up to one minute. No additional comment cards or calls will be accepted once the public comment period begins.

Good afternoon and welcome to a regular meeting of the Burbank City Council on Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. Mr. City Attorney, will you please state the items on the agenda for closed session and the study session?

Yes, Madam Mayor, Madam Vice Mayor, members of the City Council, and for the benefit of the public, the City Council is convening closed session this afternoon. about four oh five p m to discuss three items in closed session now the first item is a matter of existing litigation pursuant to government code section fifty four nine fifty six point ninety one in the case of los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority versus the city of burbank this is a case involving the california environmental quality act and breach of contract second item concerns threat to public facilities or services pursuant to government code section 54957A. The closed session will be with Mandeep Samra, general manager of Burbank Water and Power, and Kyle Wilson, assistant general manager, operations technology chief technology officer, and Riyadh Sleeman, chief assistant general manager. The third item is a matter of conference with the city's real property negotiator pursuant to government code section 54956.8 concerning 303 North Glen Oaks Boulevard. City will be negotiating with CBRE Richard Ellis. Concerning the property, the city's negotiator is Patrick Prescott, Community Development Director. Following those items, City Council will reconvene in open session at 5 p.m. or thereabouts for a study session entitled Discussion of Draft Golden State Specific Plan.

Great, thank you. Madam City Clerk, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Mayor. Do we have any in-person public comment on closed session items or the study session?

We do. We have one card for an in-person speaker, and we have two people on the phone.

Okay, great. Well, we'll start with the in-person speaking.

Thank you.

We will start with Susan O'Carroll. You have three minutes. Welcome. Welcome.

Good afternoon. I've actually got three minutes, so I get to say good afternoon, Madam Mayor, members of the city council, city manager, and today, most importantly, city attorney. I'm here because I would like to congratulate the city attorney and the city's legal team on turning things around at the court hearing last week and fending off Metro's attempt to get an injunction against Burbank to force approval of permits for the BRT. Well done. Bravo. Pass along my congratulations to your team, if you would. I'd also like to thank the city for posting the court documents on the city's website. This is important to transparency and to letting the public and residents know what's happening. I would ask that the city also obtain and post a copy of the transcript from the court hearing. Metro made clearly inaccurate representations about how SB 79 works and the city's ability to deny SP 79 projects, and the public needs to know that. Also, Burbank's legal team made important arguments regarding the potential impacts of SB 79 on the city, which are also important for the public to know and can help in efforts to lobby to make the dangers of SB 79 known to our state lawmakers. Metro's actions in suing Burbank are clearly against the city's intent in entering into the cooperative agreement to ensure permit authority over its roadways. Metro's arguments that the BRT is needed for the Olympics clearly don't make sense given the BRT doesn't serve the airport or any Olympic venue. Metro's efforts regarding SB 1361 are also clearly a breach of the spirit of the cooperative agreement. At the SB 1361 hearing before the State Assembly Local Government Committee, Metro and the bill's authors made representations of how cooperative Metro is. Burbank needs to educate the assembly and the bill's author about Metro's failure to cooperate pre and post SB 79 with Burbank and lobby more directly to defeat SB 1361. Burbank needs a seat at the table regarding that legislation. So again, just wanted to say thank you and well done and you all have a good evening.

Bye.

Thank you for your comments. We have two callers on the line. All right, please send them through.

The first caller is Charles Carno.

Welcome. You have three minutes.

Hi. Hi, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. This is Charlie Carno with Unite Here Local 11. We are here to advocate that all hotel projects in the Golden State Specific Plan require development agreements. The plan would rezone significant portions of land currently designated M2 general industrial as Golden State mixed or Golden State created. These changes would open areas long close to residential development to new housing, or reducing the amount of land available for industrial uses. We very much support the intent of adding more housing. However, the plan permits hotels in nearly every zone, even though housing remains largely prohibited in the Golden State Creative and Golden State Employment Zone. Industrial uses are restricted in the Golden State Creative Zone and generally prohibited in the Golden State Mixed Zone. Without appropriate guardrails, hotel projects could consume sites intended for housing or occupy some of the limited land that remains available for industrial development. This could undermine the plan's goals by crowding up both new housing and job-producing industrial uses. To prevent this, we urge the city to require development agreements for hotel uses within the planned area. Indeed, half of the hotels currently existing in the planned area were developed using development agreements. This will ensure hotel development is evaluated with the same rigor as other land uses and doesn't come at the expense of housing, industrial capacity, or the community and environmental review those projects deserve. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your call. Next caller, please.

The next caller is Griffin Joseph.

Welcome. You have three minutes.

Good evening. This is Griffin Joseph with Unite Here Local 11, the Hospitality Workers Union. I am here to urge you to require development agreements for hotel projects in the Golden State-specific plan area. Development agreements are not new to the hospitality projects in Burbank. Half the hotels in the Golden State-specific plan area were built through development agreements. More recently, a housing and hotel project was approved via development agreement in the downtown area. Because the plan does not rezone areas currently designated for planned development, significant portions of the planned area will already require development agreements for all uses, not just hotels. Our proposal simply extends a familiar workable tool as a use category that currently escapes it. Development agreements also offer real advantages to both the city and developers. They give the city greater discretion to secure enforceable community benefits and mitigate hotel impacts, while giving developers certainty by locking in applicable land use and zoning requirements at approval. Without appropriate guardrails, hotel projects could consume sites intended for housing or occupy some of the limited land that remains available for industrial development. Development agreements will allow us to get the kind of hospitality development that we need. The bank would not be alone in requiring development agreements. Other cities have adopted development agreement requirements for hotel projects. For example, in one of the parks' Beach Boulevard Entertainment Corridor-specific plans, hotel and entertainment projects generally require development agreements. This ensures the city can decide whether a hotel use is best for the site. Another example is Glendale's downtown specific plan, which was updated to require a development agreement for all new hotels to permit the use, require minimum standards, and memorialize additional amenities and other mitigation of community benefits in exchange for development incentives, for example, increasing height or FAR. This makes those conditions much more precise and enforceable. Santa Monica's downtown community plan also requires development agreements in certain sites. We urge Burbank to maintain its discretion over hotels and require development agreements in the Golden State specific plan area. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your call. That was our last caller? Okay. There being no further public comment, I now declare the public comment period closed. We will now proceed to a closed session meeting. We will reconvene the council meeting at 5 p.m. in the council chambers for a study session. The regular session of the council meeting will begin at 6. The public is invited to view the meeting online or by TV and will be able to provide public comment by appearing in person or by calling in directly at 818-238-3335. Public comment is accepted in person and on the phone for general public comment. The public comment period for the report to council will be taken in person only. The televised portion of the closed session is now over.