Correspondences — Burbank City Council, May 23, 2023

Meredith, Alyssa
From:

Sent: Friday, May 19, 2023 4:48 PM
To: Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Takahashi, Tamala; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette Subject: 5-23-23 Council Meeting -Agenda ITEM N Title 10 ZTA for AB 2011 Lawsuits Attachments: Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates.pdf 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'm writing to you to ask that you delay the vote to adopt the ZTA to Title 10 regarding PROJECTS IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES. This item deserves more time, especially buried on a very busy night in Council. I certainly hope they've calculated that time is needed for this - as allowing these projects will change Burbank in the way that I have heard each of you speak specifically against.

This essentially brings in those conditions that many people sought to escape by living in Burbank - homogenizing cities in a developer free-for-all profit before people approach without any regard to long term outcome other than supposed housing cost (still totally unrealized after massive area housing stock growth) or perhaps when speaking about being pro growth- we really mean the increases in already very realized development profits.

Please instead, ask the Staff to return with the work requested well over a year ago by the previous council to study ongoing litigation against the State of California related to SB 9 and 10, and to add the new lawsuit brought by Huntington Beach against the State regarding item now before you in this ZTA (AB 2011). Stand up for your City, and the work of the front line Staff of the City, who tirelessly try to work to the desires of the Council only to have that work squandered by the State.

Please watch the Planning Commission hearing. I hope you will be as concerned and disappointed as l am when you learn from this hearing that the City missed critical deadlines to protect the neighborhoods of this City by not prioritizing Specific Plan Completion on time, though they were aware of the implications. The hearing resulted in a split decision 2-2.

I can tell you, I would have voted against it as well, as it largely goes against the ideas in the general plan. This is undermining the democratic will of the local population who's desires for both the protection of characteristics of our Burbank quality of life along with allowing for growth in mixed use housing that were being carefully planned and managed by our staff. I can hear the exasperation of the staff having to keep spinning these plates with no end in sight constantly changing the codes and realizing their efforts in planning are essentially a frivolous waste of time as the central government continuously erodes our freedoms to determine what is best for our own city, commonly referred to as local control.

You will hear from the Staff response that many areas of the City there are not zoned, and worse not carefully planned to expand housing along with infrastructure and congestion mitigation are now open to unlimited height and unlimited density projects. These projects will consume staff's time without offsetting any of that cost, and worse potentially turn Mag Park style and feel into Manhattan style, with the only set back allowed being 36 inches from the curb and, again unlimited height and no parking requirement. This is especially spurious as there is no sober or realistic view that buildings of that size will not bring huge numbers of vehicles to thin two-lane roads when the new residents want a chance at seeing their families for a decent amount of time on a regular basis. It is your responsibility to protect those families, most of whom are a constituency that I've heard you praise, as working class Americans.

As with other large projects near families whose time is so limited and precious, the outcome will certainly be extremely negative when considering the long term effect of losing hours a month and compounding into days upon days over years, simply looking for parking - where those families used to trust that their Burbank leaders would protect that valuable time, differently than the poor planning that occurred over the years in places like Hollywood.

I was also disturbed that no one at the hearing asked for a full and detailed debriefing of the lawsuits that leaders in other Cities are using to try and retain their own liberty to govern, amid the anti-democratic process that Sacramento politicians have increasingly embraced. Please make a full exploration of these other real options a part of our record so the public has a true view of what could be done to protect Burbank while we also add housing at the same time.

Attached to this email is an article, admittedly, it's clearly against the passage of these laws. I ask that you look past the bias in the article and try to ascertain, fully on our record, if the legal arguments are correct. I'm also posting links to articles from "other positions", or that appear to have bias in the other direction. You will note singular discussions in there revolve around the same tired talking points without going into a discussion of the negative impacts of school funding, infrastructure, congestions, families time vs quality of life etc. As usual it's name calling and bullying of those who oppose them even for the nuanced reasons that could be dealt with by local governance that fully account for the differing, individual and unique conditions in each City.

Links:
https://therealdeal.com/la/2023/03/10/huntington-beach-sues-state-over-mandated-housing-development/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/mar/10/california-sues-huntington-beach-affordable-housing Wouldn't it be terrible if our leaders give up Burbank now, only to find out in six or seven months that the City could have been saved? I am rooting for the Leaders and Lawyers from Huntington Beach and the other five cities, standing up for their entire community, trying to preserve their rights to self-determination.

Though the cost is high, some of that cost has already been paid by Huntington Beach and would perhaps keep ours a bit lower. But that doesn't matter, if we don't spend it fighting now - there won't be anything that people come to Burbank for left to pass to future generations.

As some of you know, l've been considering running for Planning Commission again. I must say, should this pass without a legal fight, I don't see the point in running for Planning Commission. All meaningful planning has been subverted to the State level - influenced primarily by people who don't live where the rules they impose apply, which has historically produced undesired results worldwide. It makes more sense to spend my volunteer time working to hedge my bet on the future and make sure my family can be in a place like Burbank is right now, where people want to volunteer and contribute to a place they feel that their democratic voice matters and they have a meaningful say in their day-today lives.

This would be place where I could believe that growth is measured and will produce a financially sustainable outcome to maintain quality of life - basically, what Burbank has the potential to remain as long as we push back on these kinds of laws.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long email. It's a complex topic and I'm happy to discuss it with any of you before the hearing if you wish.

Best regards,
Simon Hammel - 15 Year Resident
2 5/19/23, 12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates by Will Swaim
March 13, 2023
Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's
Housing Mandates
We've seen Gov. Gavin Newsom impose questionable - even dangerous and illegal - policies by declaring states of emergency or merely "crisis" with regard to Covid, climate and energy. He's done it again on the issue of housing. The problems of housing affordability and homelessness constitute a crisis so compelling, the governor says, that they can be solved only by forcing cities to permit the construction of 2.5 million new homes by 2030.

Huntington Beach has refused to go along with the state's demand that the city approve construction of 13,368 new homes.

In response, on March 9, the state sued Huntington Beach. "The message we're sending to the city of Huntington Beach is simple: Act in good faith, follow the law and do your part to increase the housing supply," Bonta said in announcing the suit. "If you don't, our office will hold you accountable." Within hours of the state's lawsuit, Huntington Beach fired back. In a federal lawsuit, the city accuses the state of violating California and U.S. constitutional laws through the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process.

Every eight years, the RHNA process requires cities to produce a plan for meeting housing demand. But statewide "demand" — and local targets for meeting it - are determined by state officials. Huntington Beach's federal suit says Newsom, state housing director Gustavo Velasquez, the state legislature and others are using the RHNA process to violate the city's rights.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 1/8 5/19/23, 12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates At stake is the power of cities to plan their own development. Can the governor and other state officials force Huntington Beach — or California's 481 other cities — to build more housing? Does the declaration of a housing crisis allow Sacramento to trample an array of federal, state and local regulations, including key federal civil rights? Huntington Beach says its claims are "novel and complex." We do our best to offer a summary of those claims here, but there's no substitute for reading the city's lawsuit itself, which you can find here.

1. Violates California Constitution Art. XI (Charter City) The Huntington Beach complaint rests on multiple legal claims, including its assertion that its status as a charter city gives it tremendous authority over local matters, including - maybe especially - zoning. The state's imposition of higher housing densities violates that constitutional authority (California Constitution, Art. XI).

From the complaint: "The City of Huntington Beach was not created by the State. In fact, the City, invoking Section 5(a) of Article XI of the California Constitution, provides that a Charter City shall not be governed by State law in respect to 'Municipal Affairs. Rather, 'so far as "Municipal Affairs" are concerned, Charter Cities' laws are 'supreme and beyond the reach of [State] legislative enactment. (California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 35 Cal.3d 1, 12.)"
The fact that charter cities have "voluntarily followed" the state's housing process in the past and may do so in the future does not mean that charter cities " relinquish their Charter City Constitutional Home Rule authority."

2. Violates the First Amendment speech rights of cities, city officials, and residents
What may be most "novel" in the city's complaint is this: Huntington Beach alleges that state of California housing regulations require "state speech," and that, the city says, violates its First Amendment speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 218 5/19/23, 12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates Under new state housing regulations, city officials must find, as the state demands, that there is a "housing crisis" in order to sweep aside all other existing laws - including environmental laws — that might block the state's higher densities.

The city alleges that the state's housing regulations compel the City Council to arrive at a pre-ordained, "fixed," "State-contrived" speech."Gavin Newsom, the Director [of HCD], HCD, and other State actors want them to say, including but not limited to, there 'is a housing crisis, that Huntington Beach 'needs more affordable housing, that the State 'needs more affordable housing, that 'the benefits of high-density development in the City outweigh the negative impacts of high-density development on the environment, and so on, despite objective evidence to the contrary. The Governor, the Director, HCD, and SCAG use the RHNA Laws regulate, even mandate, how the City communicates its stance on housing, what ultimately the Council Members" say' in their vote, and what Council Members are compelled to say to the public with regard to 'housing need' to justify their vote."
State housing regulations "require the City Council Members to replace their free speech, i.e., the verbal expressions of their freely formed opinions and decision-making thoughts, with the words of the State that advance the State's political agenda." Specifically, Huntington Beach says, state housing law requires its city council to adopt a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" that dismisses environmental regulations as an impediment to the housing crisis. Never mind "that the City Council may not otherwise choose to say [this], may not believe [it] necessarily to be true": the state requires that the city's officials must declare "that the benefits of the proposed high-density housing outweigh the negative impacts on the City's environment." The city calls this "a fixed conclusion," an approval of high-density housing that city officials must reach "even before consideration through public hearings." Circumventing public hearings is itself a legal violation, the city says. The Council must endorse the state's findings and remedies "even before the City Council has an opportunity through its rightful, constitutionally provided, legislative process, to hold public hearings https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 3/8 5/19/23, 12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates and make its own findings on a proposed zoning issue before adopting a 'Statement of Overriding Consideration'"

3. Violates the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The Free Speech violation described above isn't a matter of mere philosophy. It puts city officials in a bind: In order to obey state housing regulations, they must override CEQA; to obey CEQA, those officials must violate housing regulations. "For the two State laws, RHNA Laws and CEQA, to be in direct competition or conflict forces local City Council's in Huntington Beach to relinquish local decision-making one way or the other."

4. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regulatory process is broken
The complaint alleges that the HCD's conclusions - about whether there's a housing "crisis," what it would take to resolve that crisis, and who bears responsibility for solving it - are based on "faulty housing data and population projections concerning population growth to create and then require cities to implement components of their Housing Elements."
This claim is supported by a state independent auditor's 2022 report, which concluded, "HCD does not satisfactorily review its needs assessments to ensure that staff accurately enter data when they calculate how much housing local governments must plan to build...

HCD could not demonstrate that it adequately considered all of the factors that state law requires... This insufficient oversight and lack of support for its considerations risks eroding public confidence that HCD is informing local governments of the appropriate amount of housing they will need."
According to Huntington Beach's complaint, the troubled state system specifically relies on "the wrong population forecast, [compares] regions that are not comparable to Southern California, and [uses] inaccurate and unattainable vacancy rates." The state relies on "a methodology that grossly overestimates the projected housing needs by including overcrowding resulted in double counting the number of required dwelling units for this https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 4/8 5/19/23, 12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates Planning Cycle, which was also all done in violation of RHNA Laws. Such factors were not included in prior methodologies and such calculations are in violation of statutory law." The city asserts that SCAG ignored these problems because math, accurate data, and state law were ultimately less compelling to SCAG (and state regulators) than political pressure — "last-minute political wrangling between larger, more influential cities pressuring SCAG to take RHNA units away from their cities" and the determination of those larger cities to "force" new development "into other, less politically influential cities, like Huntington Beach."
Huntington Beach raised these objections through SCAG but, it alleges, "The Director of SCAG indicated that it would not sue HCD for the violations of State laws even though SCAG had formally objected to the Regional Determination but only because the State has 'unlimited lawyers' and resources, not because a challenge would not have merit."

5. Violates California Constitution Art. XI (Due Process) In imposing housing requirements derived from this faulty system, California housing officials and the governor discriminated against Huntington Beach - a violation of due process rights guaranteed to the city under California Constitution Article IV, section 16, the city says. "The poorly enacted RHNA Laws cause cities like Huntington Beach to be disproportionately burdened while allowing other cities to zone for very few RHNA Units." The city's claim notes the different treatment of cities that have failed to file housing plans that comply with the governor's housing target. Some 280 California cities are not compliant with the solutions required under the state's plan. But many cities have been given a pass — a gift from the governor that looks suspiciously political in nature, the suit asserts.

The city notes that "the State's high-density housing proliferation scheme... targets already-developed areas of the State, does little or nothing to increase housing development in undeveloped areas of the State, and exempts entirely certain 'favored' portions of the State." It continues: "according to the 2010 Census, 95 percent of https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 5/8 5/19/23,12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates Californians live on just 5.3 percent of the territory in the state." In other words, over 95 percent of California is undeveloped and unoccupied."
Why would state regulators go to war with some cities over home construction, but not others? Why would the state impose housing higher densities on cities at all — given that so much of the state is unoccupied?
Huntington Beach officials assert that the reason is political.

Consider Marin County. From the city complaint: State regulators have "carved out 'favored' portions of the State to be allowed to skirt the very same Housing Laws, including RHNA Laws, which are imposed on Huntington Beach. In a 2019 article, entitled 'Huntington Beach Sued While Marin County Exempted from Affordable Housing Requirements' [California Globe] reported that Governor Gavin Newsom's home county, Marin County, is 'enjoying a moratorium on affordable housing building requirements until 2028! To accomplish this, 'sneaky language inserted into a 2017 budget trailer bill [AB 106] allowed Marin County to maintain its extra restrictions on how many homes developers can build, giving the finger to the California Anti-NIMBY Statute'" The city notes, "Marin County is only required to create enough new housing for 0.9% of its 2017 population compared to the regional average of 2.4%.... Marin County is allowed to flout RHNA Laws; the City of Huntington Beach must plan to build 13,368 RHNA Units while Marin County gets a pass."
The case is similar in Santa Barbara County, the suit declares: "It's at least noteworthy that the affluent suburbs seeking ways around their quotas, mostly in the San Francisco Bay Area, are overwhelmingly Democrat in their political orientation while Huntington Beach is a Republican stronghold. That would be Montecito, home to celebrities galore, including Oprah Winfrey, Rob Lowe, Ellen DeGeneres and, most recently, expatriate British Prince Harry and his wife, actress Meghan Markle."
"Some of the sites [in Santa Barbara County] are vacant while others are occupied, including some shopping centers and churches. None is in Montecito or an adjacent enclave https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 6/8 5/19/23, 12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates called Summerland, even though the county's inventory of vacant land includes about a dozen parcels, some of them large, in those two communities. When county officials outlined their plan at a public meeting this month, they were asked why no sites in Montecito were included. [Santa Barbara] County planning director Lisa Plowman said only sites whose owners were interested in development were chosen and no one in Montecito or Summerland was amenable to dense multi-family housing."

6. Violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Applying a system based on faulty data; to cities chosen for the political orientation; that requires city officials to violate one law in order to follow another: for these and other reasons, the city says, the state's housing mandates violate the U.S. Constitution's protection against "patently arbitrary classification." "A flawed state mandate can be no 'mandate' on a city at all.' "These laws are so flawed, conflicting, vague, arbitrary and capricious, and left to subjective interpretation and application of political actors as to be unconstitutional."
The state admits that this system is flawed, the suit alleges. In the summer of 2019, the legislature authored — and Gavin Newsom ultimately signed - AB 101. "So flawed are the RHNA Laws that the State, in a damning admission that its own Legislation has been flawed for years, recently passed AB 101, which states: 'this bill, by December 31, 2022, would also require HCD, in collaboration with the Office of Planning and Research and after engaging in stakeholder participation, to develop a recommended improved regional housing need allocation process and methodology that promotes and streamlines housing development and substantially addresses California's housing shortage, as provided. The bill would require HCD to submit a report on its findings and recommendations to the Legislature upon completion." By virtue of AB 101, the State admits that its RHNA Laws (and processes) to determine how many RHNA Units are needed in the State, and individual jurisdictions, must be fixed. As will be demonstrated at trial, a 'flawed State mandate' can be no 'mandate' on a city at all." https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 7/8 5/19/23,12:44 PM Huntington Beach's Lawsuit Challenges Newsom's Housing Mandates If the state were truly interested in building additional housing, it ought to look first to its own house: over decades, driven by environmentalists, organized labor and others, the state of California has erected a regulatory barrier around the construction of new homes.

State officials could eliminate these laws systematically and free homebuilders to do what they do best: Build.

Will Swaim is the President of the California Policy Center and cohost of National Review's Radio Free California podcast.
https://californiapolicycenter.org/huntington-beachs-lawsuit-challenges-newsoms-housing-mandates/ 8/8 Meredith, Alyssa
From: eric hall
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 12:38 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Urgent Matter for the Burbank City Council
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.

Dear Members of the Burbank City Council,
I am a 25-year resident Burbank, and have worked in Burbank for almost 40 years. Burbank was always so special because it was a place that didn't get destroyed by developers over time. That didn't happen by accident, or from neglect. It happened because there were smart people who cared about Burbank on the City Council. They had a long view. They were not motivated only by politics and money and being quiet and staying in line. I think they were part of The Great Generation. There was a reason they were called that. In the last ten years, I've watched developers essentially destroy Hollywood. The feeling and nature of the Hollywood we knew is now gone.

But I never imagined that the people of power in Burbank would allow developers to do what is now happening in our community. Now I've learned that the City Council has bent to the developers and Sacramento in ways unimaginable. I'm furious about what is evolving. Before most residents even knew about what is coming, it's already happening. We pay a lot in taxes that would not have been incurred if we lived elsewhere. The laid back charm, the original architecture, the lack of traffic congestion, the laws that prevented developers from taking over, and the quiet vibe of Burbank was why I chose to settle in Burbank. Do I have any rights?
Please authorize the City Attorney to ask for an injunction now, to buy time to join or immediately join Huntington Beach in suing the State of California to get our right to govern our own city back. What is happening does not have to happen. Please stop this developer take-over of Burbank. The huge development being built on Front Street and the same developer building on the Fry's lot, is going to change the landscape of Burbank, the traffic will increase substantially. As more of these huge developments are approved, and mixed use structures are built all over, and in historical areas such as Magnolia Avenue and Burbank Blvd., Burbank will be unrecognizable. Everyone knows this, and are being quiet about what is soon going to happen.

If we do not step in immediately, ten years from now, people will only have photographs of what it will have been like. Perhaps residents are comfortable and take Burbank for granted, but when the landscape changes because of what's coming, many residents will be very angry and heartbroken over what will be lost. Burbank is an experience. You can't buy that. The more the place is given to developers, the more the beautiful experience called Burbank just becomes part of history. It doesn't have to be that way. Burbank should be preserved.

Please consider us, the voters and taxpayers, and our families. Many residents are just now learning about the issues I am writing to you about. The amazing Lakeside Carwash from 1956. Really? To destroy one of the last standing historical and iconic structures left from the imaginative era of fifties architecture is shortsighted, I don't understand how the current City Council keeps approving everything without the awareness of the residents. Residents are mad. They will become more angry, and by the time they have the chance to vote differently, it will be too late ... way too late. Please join Huntington Beach and give us the right to govern our own special city.

Thank you,
Eric Hall
Burbank, CA 91506
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Janie Fitzgerald
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2023 11:23 AM
To: City Council DL
Subiect: !!! Opposition to Agenda Item N on 5-23-2023: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED-USE AND RESIDENTIAL-ONLY PROJECTS IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES.

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..

Hello, I'm a resident and homeowner in Burbank, I grew up in the Valley. Burbank was special, a place that didn't get destroyed by developers over time. That didn't happen by accident, or from neglect. It happened because there were really really smart people who cared about Burbank on the City Council. I mean they had a long view. They were not motivated by politics and money and staying in their lane. I think they were part of The Great Generation. There was a reason they were called that. In the last ten years, I've watched developers destroy Hollywood, in that the feeling and nature of Hollywood is gone. But I never ever would have imagined that the people of power in Burbank would allow developers to do what is now happening so quickly. Now I've learned that the City Council has bended to the developers and Sacramento in ways unimaginable. I'm furious about what is rapidly evolving. Before most residents even knew about what is coming, it's already happening. I pay a lot in taxes that I would not have incurred if I lived elsewhere. The laid back charm, the original architecture, the lack of traffic congestion, the LAWS that prevented developers from taking over, the LAWS that prevented from building too high, the LAWS that prevented big advertising signs on the streets, and the quiet vibe of Burbank was why I chose to buy my home in Burbank. Do I have any rights? Do I have any rights at all left, or do I just stay quiet and complacent, knowing that my voice will not be heard, that the residents of Burbank have no power, no say in the matter. Please authorize the City Attorney to ask for an injunction now, to buy time to join or immediately join Huntington Beach in suing the State of California to get our right to govern our own city back. What is happening does not have to happen. Please stop this developer take-over of Burbank. The huge development being built on Front Street and the same developer building on the Fry's lot, is going to change the landscape of Burbank, the traffic will increase substantially. As more of these developments are approved, and mixed use structures are built all over Burbank, and in historical areas such as Magnolia Avenue and Burbank Blvd., Burbank will be unrecognizable.

Please stop what is soon going to happen. Ten years from now, people will only have photographs of what it was like. Perhaps residents are comfortable and take Burbank for granted, but when the landscape changes because of what's coming, many residents will be very angry, and heartbroken over what was lost. Burbank is an experience, you can't buy that, the more the place is given to developers, the more the beautiful experience called Burbank just becomes part of history. It doesn't have to be that way. Burbank should be preserved.

Residents are mad. They will become more angry and by the time they have the chance to vote differently, it will be too late. Way too late. Please join Huntington Beach and give us the right to govern our own special city.

Again, please authorize the City Attorney to ask for an injunction now, to buy time to join or immediately join Huntington Beach in suing the State of California to get our right to govern our own city back. What is happening does not have to happen. Please stop this developer take-over of Burbank.

Sincerely,
Homeowner and Tax Payer.

J. Fitzgerald
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: VICTORIA ENGLISH -
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:26 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Unintended Consequences
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.

Dear Burbank,
I strongly oppose the re-zoning especially as it pertains to 901 S Mariposa.

I feel that many homes with only a 1 lane wide road as an evacuation route is a recipe for disaster.

I live on Mariposa & Dincara - just 1 block away. I personally will be impacted.

I moved to my current home to fulfill a lifelong dream of living in the Rancho because of the horses.

California's housing crisis is not the housing crisis we think it is. California's population has not dramatically increased. In fact, many people are leaving.

The problem is not a shortage of units, but a shortage of affordable units. And there are enough units to accommodate pretty much everyone except they are not being used as long term housing.

Many once affordable homes have been converted to air nb units, including several in Burbank.

Return those homes to their intended use (long term housing) instead of de facto hotels and save our special neighborhoods.

1. Will the general public be notified when an AB 2011 application has been filed for a specific parcel, such as the City's public website notification system set up for SB 35 applications? This would be helpful in giving the public a little advanced warning of these developments in their neighborhoods.

2. How will the City address the influx of large and concentrated multi-family housing that does not provide sufficient parking for the households that will occupy these parcels?

3. Will the City do anything to mitigate the fact that the new multi-family housing residents will necessarily park on the closest street parking to their new homes, thereby negatively impacting the availability of existing residents and businesses to utilize street parking they have depended upon for years?

4. Will the City do anything to mitigate the traffic congestion that will necessarily occur on these "Commercial Corridors" that will add hundreds of parked cars and hundreds of drivers, especially at peak hours, to residential streets already plagued with "cut-through" traffic?

5. Will the City do anything to mitigate the increased danger of all of these extra vehicles to bicyclists using our streets during peak traffic hours?

6. Will the City do anything to mitigate the increased danger on equestrian priority streets to the equestrians in R- 1-H who necessarily use on-street trails within the Rancho in order to access the Mariposa Bridge?

7. Please ask staff to clarify the 500 foot Freeway Exclusionary Area for the properties located at 910 S. Mariposa (Circle K Boarding Barns) and 914 So. Mariposa (Studio Horse Rentals). Are each of those properties within the 500 Foot Exclusionary Area?
Tori English
President, Traditional Equitation School
"No hour of life is wasted that is spent in the saddle." -Winston Churchill 2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Julie D'Angelo
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: In support of Items 15, 16, 20 on tonight's Council agenda 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.

Dear City Council and Mayor Anthony,
I'm writing in support of several housing-related concerns on tonight's City Council agenda:

Item 15
I strongly support introducing an ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 1 (zoning) of the Burbank Municipal Code to establish objective design and development standards for mixed-use and residential-only projects in non-residential zones.

I want to commend the Community Development Dept. (particularly Amanda Landry) on their pro-active outreach to the community and their work in getting residents' input on potential development standards. I live in the Alameda North neighborhood, adjacent to the Media District, and their work in on development standards for the Media District has been outstanding and re-affirms my faith in good government practices. We are lucky to have this group of people working for our city.

That the Planning Commission did not vote to support introduction of this ordinance is a disappointment. A state mandate is a state mandate. I'm hoping Council rejects the comments about fighting AB 2011 (who will pay for state lawsuits and fines?), and embraces the opportunity to shape development for the good of the community as best we can.

Item 16
I support adopting an urgency ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 1 (zoning) of the Burbank Municipal Code to establish objective design and development standards for mixed-use and residential-only projects in non-residential zones.

Item 20
I support and hope you will direct staff to prepare a second step report on a safe parking program. I hope staff will research and consider sites offering shade in summer, shelter from rain in winter (we have an El Nino coming).

Thank you,
Julie D'Angelo
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Sheri Robinson
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 9:54 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject. Agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not clicklinks or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good afternoon
As a Glendale resident, I ask you to delay the vote to adopt the ZTA AB2011 to Title 10 regarding projects in non- residential zones. This is a significant topic that needs more time for discussion. Allowing projects under ZTA will change Burbank in ways that I have heard each of you speak specifically against. This essentially brings in those conditions that many people sought to escape by living in Burbank - homogenizing cities in a developer free-for-all profit before people approach without any regard to long term outcome other than supposed housing cost (still totally unrealized after massive area housing stock growth) or perhaps when speaking about being pro growth- we really mean the increases in already very realized development profits.

This is wrong and insulting for those you have lived in California for the love of the state and keeping what they have worked so hard for. A safe place to live, raise a family and live out your life.

Thank you,
Sheri Robinson
Glendale, CA 91201
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From:

Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:50 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Public Comment - May 23, 2023 - Agenda Item # P.15 - AB 2011 Implementation Ordinance
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.

Dear Mayor Anthony, Vice-Mayor Schultz, and Councilmembers Mullins, Takahashi, and Perez, Thank you for the opportunity to present Public Comment regarding the City's proposed Zone Text Amendments in light of AB 2011.

I am hopeful that you will be able to address my comments, which are for the most part in the form of questions, in your comments this evening:

1. Will you please ask staff to clarify the 500 foot Freeway Exclusionary Area for the properties located at 910 S.

Mariposa (Circle K Boarding Barns) and 914 So. Mariposa (Studio Horse Rentals). (On Attachment 4 (Maps), page 1, Affordable Housing in Nonresidential Zones, these properties are located in the Rancho, toward the bottom of the map, closest to the river and the freeway.)
• Are each of these properties within the 500 foot Freeway Exclusionary Area? • If any portion of a parcel is within the 500 foot Freeway Exclusionary Area, is the entire parcel excluded under the 500 foot Freeway Exclusionary Area?

2. Will the general public be notified when an AB 2011 application has been filed for a specific parcel, such as the City's public website notification system already in place for SB 35 applications? This would be helpful in giving the public a little advanced warning of these developments in their neighborhoods.

3. How will the City address the influx of large and concentrated multi-family housing that does not provide sufficient parking for the households that will occupy these parcels?

4. Will the City do anything to mitigate the fact that the new multi-family housing residents will necessarily park on the closest street parking to their new homes, thereby negatively impacting the availability of pre-existing residents and businesses to utilize street parking they have depended upon for years?

5. Will the City do anything to mitigate the traffic congestion that will necessarily occur on these "Commercial Corridors," and that will add hundreds of parked cars and hundreds of drivers, especially at peak hours, to residential streets already plagued with "cut-through" traffic?

6. Will the City do anything to mitigate the increased danger of all of these extra vehicles to bicyclists using our streets during peak traffic hours?

7. Will the City do anything to mitigate the increased danger on equestrian priority streets to the equestrians in R-1-H who necessarily use on-street trails within the Rancho in order to access the Mariposa Bridge? 1 I realize that AB 2011, like SB 35, is a state-mandate, and that neither of these pieces of legislation direct the City to mitigate any of the unintended consequences of the legislature's housing efforts. However, the fact of the matter is that each and every one of these housing developments, taken singularly, will impact the mobility and safety of all of the users of our City streets. Cumulatively, that impact is tremendous and dramatic, and not envisioned in Burbank2035. The City needs to realize the extent of these impacts now, and in the interest of public health and safety, formulate Neighborhood Protection Plans and the like to address these issues.

Thank you for your consideration of my questions and concerns, Nori Walla
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Save GlendaleRiversideRancho
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 10:35 AM
To: City Clerks; City Council DL
Subject: Fwd: URGENT - Agenda Item 15. Public Hearing. Please deny & join City of Huntington Beach Lawsuit
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.

Dear Mayor Anthony and member of city council,
PLEASE ENTER THE FOLLOWING EMAIL INTO THE "PUBLIC RECORD".

As an equestrian business owner in equine assisted therapy, an injury epidemiologist, and former city planner, I ask that you deny or delay voting on Agenda Item 15 and join the City of Huntington Beach lawsuit against the State of California to bring back local control.

As you are aware these state initiatives while promoting solving a housing problem are and will continue to contribute to the housing problem and homelessness. With AB2011, will put all of Burbank at risk, but specifically in the rancho community, with the lack of planning, traffic, noise, and parking impacts will put the health and safety of residential and other equestrians, including the general public at an increased risk of severe injury and fatality. Further this will have a negative impact to those of us who have businesses and will result in severe economic losses and tax revenue to the City. Because the Burbank ranch is adjacent to the equestrian communities neighboring in Glendale and Los Angeles, increases the liability risk further.

I ask that you deny or delay voting on this ordinance and join the City of Huntington Beach lawsuit against the State of California. This is the only way to bring back local control. These initiatives have no validity on increasing housing supply to increase "affordable" housing or addressing homelessness. The community is not against housing, but with local control that we already have in our Burbank 2035 General Plan, to protect the health and safety of its residents, property values, and equestrian and other lifestyle and businesses. Without local control, communities will have no choice but to file a lawsuit against the City to protect their property, rights, and businesses from losses.

Our rights are counting on you! Make the right choice for the future. In 10 to 20 years from now, do you want your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to look back at Burbank neighborhoods that are safe, including a rancho, and lifestyles? Or look back at a city full of skyscrapers, traffic congestion and parking problems, crime, and environmental problems and they say "my grandparent is responsible for this mess". I look forward to you all voting to delay or deny this ordinance and to join the lawsuit against the State of California. This will also increase your changes for those of you who are campaigning for other elected positions.

Sincerely,
Dr. James DeCarli
Save Glendale Riverside Rancho
1 Website: SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho.com
Instagram: @saveglendaleriversiderancho
Twitter: @SaveOurRancho
YouTube: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
Facebook: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
- Forwarded message ----
From: Save GlendaleRiversideRancho
Date: Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:27 AM
Subject: URGENT - Agenda Item 15. Public Hearing. Please deny & join City of Huntington Beach Lawsuit To: City Council DL <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Cc: Linda Rappoport , Roy Simison >, Elizabeth Bour
mara baygulova
Gavin Quinton 7, Nichola Ellis
?, Liz | EMR Media Group 7, Sheri Robinson
> Karen Thornton 3, TeamCD4 1
7, KCBS-TV Goldstein Investigates <
→, Four Legs On Set
1, Linda Bassani p, Anne McDonald
Dear Mayor Anthony and member of city council,
As an equestrian business owner in equine assisted therapy, an injury epidemiologist, and former city planner, I ask that you deny or delay voting on Agenda Item 15 and join the City of Huntington Beach lawsuit against the State of California to bring back local control.

Our rights are counting on you! Make the right choice for the future. In 10 to 20 years from now, do you want your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren to look back at Burbank neighborhoods that are safe, including a rancho, and lifestyles? Or look back at a city full of skyscrapers, traffic congestion and parking problems, crime, and 2 environmental problems and they say "my grandparent is responsible for this mess". I look forward to you all voting to delay or deny this ordinance and to join the lawsuit against the State of California. This will also increase your changes for those of you who are campaigning for other elected positions.

Sincerely,
Dr. James DeCarli
Save Glendale Riverside Rancho
Website: SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho.com
Instagram: @saveglendaleriversiderancho
Twitter: @SaveOurRancho
YouTube: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
Facebook: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
From Desk of Jim DeCarli
Save Glendale Riverside Rancho
Website: SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho.com
Instagram: @saveglendaleriversiderancho
Twitter: @SaveOurRancho
YouTube: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
Facebook: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Roy Simison d
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 11:19 AM
To: City Council DL; Anthony, Konstantine;
Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette Cc: Linda Rappoport; Elizabeth Bour, mara baygulova;
Gavin Quinton;
Nichola Ellis; Liz | EMR Media Group; € Sheri Robinson; Karen Thornton; TeamCD4; ¡ KCBS-TV Goldstein Investigates;
Four Legs
On Set; Linda Bassani; Anne McDonald
Subject: Re: URGENT - Agenda Item 15. Public Hearing. Please deny & join City of Huntington Beach Lawsuit
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or apen attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Is anyone besides myself going to show up in person to speak to the council? I believe packing the council chamber it's self sends a loud message it is very discouraging without all my neighbors to show up and fight for their neighborhood, we are at at a critical point we either convince the city to fight for us and join other cities in lawsuits against the state or you roll over and sacrifice all you have worked for to a small group of radicals. It is very important to stress the housing problems will not be fixed by anyone as long as California is a sanctuary city and millions of homeless come across our boarders adding to an already hopeless situation created by the very people that inflict the cost and destruction of our neighborhood on us it's time to put up or lose it.

Sent from AOL on Android
On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 10:28 AM, Save GlendaleRiversideRancho wrote:

Dear Mayor Anthony and member of city council,
As an equestrian business owner in equine assisted therapy, an injury epidemiologist, and former city planner, I ask that you deny or delay voting on Agenda Item 15 and join the City of Huntington Beach lawsuit against the State of California to bring back local control.

Sincerely,
--
Dr. James DeCarli
Save Glendale Riverside Rancho
Website: SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho.com
Instagram: @saveglendaleriversiderancho
Twitter: @SaveOurRancho
YouTube: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
Facebook: @SaveGlendaleRiversideRancho
2 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Save GlendaleRiversideRancho
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 10:28 AM
To: City Council DL; Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Cc: Linda Rappoport; Roy Simison; Elizabeth Bour; mara baygulova; Gavin Quinton;
Nichola Ellis; Liz | EMR Media Group; [email protected]; Sheri Robinson; Karen Thornton; TeamCD4;] KCBS-TV Goldstein Investigates;
Four Legs
On Set; ¿ Linda Bassani; Anne McDonald
Subject: URGENT - Agenda Item 15. Public Hearing. Please deny & join City of Huntington Beach Lawsuit
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.

Dear Mayor Anthony and member of city council,
As an equestrian business owner in equine assisted therapy, an injury epidemiologist, and former city planner, 1 ask that you deny or delay voting on Agenda Item 15 and join the City of Huntington Beach lawsuit against the State of California to bring back local control.

Dear Council Members,
I write with concern about tonight's Public Hearing over AB 2011, which makes certain multifamily housing development projects a by-right use subject to streamlined, ministerial review on sites within a zone where office, retail or parking is the principally permitted use. As a 38-year resident of Burbank, I have come to love & enjoy my Rancho neighborhood, and wish for it to remain the friendly, peaceful environment that it has been.

I realize AB 2011 shortens proposed project review timeframes, with the objectives of expediting development. Nonetheless, I believe there a number of questions that should be addressed before before any deveopment takes place. Specifically,

1. Will the general public be notified when an AB 2011 application has been filed for a specific parcel, possibly using the City's public website notification system set up for SB 35 applications? This would be helpful in giving the public advanced warning of developments affecting their neighborhoods.

2. How will the City address the influx of large and concentrated multi-family housing that does not provide sufficient parking for the households that will occupy these parcels?

3. What will the City do to address new multi-family housing residents parking on the closest street to their new homes, thereby negatively impacting the availability of existing residents and businesses to utilize street parking they have depended upon for years?

4. What will the City do to mitigate the additional traffic congestion that will arise on these "Commercial Corridors" that will add hundreds of parked cars and hundreds of drivers, especially at peak hours, to residential streets already burdened with "cut-through" traffic?

5. Will the City do anything to mitigate the increased danger of all of these extra vehicles to bicyclists using our streets during peak traffic hours? 1 6. Will the City do anything to mitigate the increased danger on equestrian priority streets to R-1H homeowners, who necessarily use on-street trails within the Rancho in order to access the Mariposa Bridge?

7. Please ask Staff to clarify the 500 foot Freeway Exclusionary Area for the properties located at 910 S. Mariposa (Circle K Boarding Barns) and 914 So.

Mariposa (Studio Horse Rentals). Are each of those properties within the 500 Foot Exclusionary Area?
Thank you for reviewing my questions. I look forward to your response.

Best regards,
James & Karen Franken
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Eric DeWitt
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 1:25 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Design and Developement Stadards
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.

As a long time resident of Burbank, I want to strongly object to the new standards proposed by the state of California. It's no wonder people are moving out of the state. There was a time I was so proud to say I lived in Burbank but no longer! I live in the hills where in the past there was plenty o parking, the neighborhoods were safe and quiet and now, there are are crowded streets, racing cars, parties and limited parking. In addition, it seems that many houses have or are adding ADU's, not to rent but to legally exceed the FAR square cottages with no requirement for parking.

Please reconsider fighting the State of California and stop the destruction of our city.

Thanks
Eric DeWitt
Sent from my iPad
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Vince Carnegie ‹
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 1:27 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: State controlled housing mandates
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.

Our council needs to fight back against state mandated housing requirements. All it is doing is forcing more apartments that are not affordable nor housing. Burbamk is maxed out on infrastructure for the existing population there is plenty of room in other undeveloped areas to build real affordable housing that citizens can own and not beholden to paying rent their entire lives Vince carnegie burbank resident
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Renny Maddox <
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 1:08 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: new standards
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.

I live in a single-family home. On one side of me, there is a mega-mansion, and on the other side, a nice Burbank house with a big ADU with a balcony that can look into my backyard. Luckily, I have a garage, but if I need to park on the street or have guests over, good luck to them for finding parking!
Can't we at least try to push back against these new standards? Please! Lynn Maddox
1 Meredith, Alyssa
From: Julie D'Angelo
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: In support of Items 15, 16, 20 on tonight's Council agenda 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.

Dear City Council and Mayor Anthony,
I'm writing in support of several housing-related concerns on tonight's City Council agenda:

Thank you,
Julie D'Angelo
1 City Council Meeting - Joint with All Agencies
Meeting Time: 05-23-23 16:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting Agenda Comments Support Oppose Neutral Time Items
City Council Meeting - Joint with All 05-23-23 86 4 1 3 0 Agencies 16:00
Sentiments for All Meetings
Til be Shing graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented Overall Sentiment
# Support(25%)
Opposo(75%)
• Neutral(%)
City Council Meeting - Joint with All Agencies
05-23-23 16:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral

15. Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the City's Zoning Regulations 2 2 to Establish Objective Design and Development Standards for Mixed-Use Ded Resident ai Prais in Nonresidential Zones - Community Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.

Overall Sentiment
& Suppor:25%!
Opposo(75%)
# Neutral,0%)
No Fiespanse:0%)
Overall Sentiment
Support%)
Oppose: 100%1
• Nautrak(0%:

No Response 0%)
Agenda Item: eComments for 15. Introduction of an Ordinance to Amend the City's Zoning Regulations to Establish Objective Design and Development Standards for Mixed-Use and Residential Projects in Nonresidential Zones - Community Development Department
Overall Sentiment
# Support (0%)
Oppase(100%)
& Neutrak0%)
No Response(0%)
Alisa Cunningham
ocatior
ubmitted At. 2:40pm 05-23-2
I would prefer to see our leaders fight this bill, rather than allow the state to continue to remove all local control and apply development rules not appropriate for our neighborhoods. Assuming you will not fight, then I'd like staff to address:

1. How will you deal with projects that do not provide sufficient parking? How will you mitigate new residents whose parking needs negatively impact the availability for existing residents? 2. How will you mitigate the increased danger on equestrian priority streets to the equestrians in R1H who must use on-street trails within the Rancho?
James DeCarli
Location:

Submitted At: 9:43am 05-23-23
I am an equestrian business owner. Please delay voting on this ordinance and join the City of Huntington Beach lawsuit against the State of California. AB2011 will increase the risk of traffic and parking that can significantly have a negative impact to the rancho communities. This will put property owners at risk, the health safety of equestrians, horses, the general public and equestrian and other businesses that will result in significant financial losses. Please, delay this vote, join the lawsuit to bring back local control. If not lawsuits against the City of Burbank will occur.

Burbank City CouncilMay 23, 2023

Burbank City Council
May 23, 2023