From:
To: Springer, Sharon
Cc: Schultz, Nick; Frutos, Bob; Anthony, Konstantine; Talamantes, Jess Subject: Re: CC meeting Agenda 5/24/2022: question
Date: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:15:21 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Thanks for the follow up.
I saw the litigation listed, and the news article about it.
On the DIF: It's great if the fees have been included.
If there is still a chance to modify them,
please consider fees applied to teardowns and full remodels.
If my understanding is correct there would be no increase in fees for many projects in those situations.
To me it seems at least a smaller percentage of the fees paid by new construction is a fair balance of contributing to the evolving and expanding infrastructure costs that are different in the time since a property was originally developed.
Additionally,
I had hoped to ask that you request that these fees are reviewed to increase in connection with inflation at some regular interval.
Best regards,
Simon Hammel
On Tue, May 24, 2022, 6:14 AM Springer, Sharon <
[email protected]> wrote:
Good morning, Simon.
Thank you for your email.
I think the updated fees are in the budget,
but I will check.
Public Comment on Closed Session, which includes Pickwick, starts at 4:00.
B. Closed Session in City Hall First Floor Conference Room:
1. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation a. Initiation of litigation pursuant to Govt.
Code §54956.9(d)(4) City
as Potential Plaintiff
b. Number of potential case(s): 1
2. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
a. Initiation of litigation pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(d)(1) b. Name of Case: Pickwick Investment, LLC vs. City Council of the City of Burbank, et al.
c. Case No.: 22STCP01756
d. Brief description and nature of case: Petition for Writ of Mandate regarding Pickwick Investment, LLC SB 35 Denial
https://burbank.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=7526 Sharon Springer
Council Member
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Ave., Burbank, CA 91502
818.238.5751 [email protected]
From: Simon H. >
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2022 5:57 AM
To:
City Council DL <[email protected]>
Subject: CC meeting Agenda 5/24/2022: question
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Members of Council,
I may not be able to view the meeting tonight, and I'm writing to please ask if
some of you
would ask about an update on the DIF changes/ updates that passed the planning board with 4-0 vote (one member absent) a few
weeks
ago.
If somehow I missed it in the City Council,
please forgive me.
I would think I would have seen it though.
There were very few comments (including mine), at the planning board hearing.
We posted
our own notice among
a few of us, and I take from the lack of response people are as satisfied as I am.
With a tweak or two I feel it's a good deal, and certainly an excellent improvement from our current structure.
Members of the public seemed satisfied with the public outreach meeting, the planning board decision, and so it is curious that it would not already be on the docket for a hopefully quick passage.
I'm asking because I'd hope they go into effect before Pickwick has a chance to advance one way or another, there have been no terms and conditions signed, and so I hope the City will not lose out twice on the issue.
On that subject, I believe the City should argue its position that any suggestion for a change in the use of the area was made in error, if that error is used as a reason to override
the will
of the voters.
Further on that point, I'd like to meet with any of you about the person that authorized that change in use/ designation, especially if that individual causes the City to lose its case by their arbitrary and incorrect decision to interpret the language in the least obvious way and most obtuse interpretation of the general plan/ goals. It seems that this is not the first time certain current City employees have abused our code, plans, and their position for the limited scope of benefiting a single developer to the determinant of the greater populace of the City and future generations of residents .
After years of obstruction, seemingly purposeful delay, and missing out on the enjoyment of the sort or revenue our neighboring cities have enjoyed - it's a victory to get those DIF's passed.
Thank you for your consideration,
Simon Hammel