Burbank City Council
November 26, 2024

Sanchez, Maria
From: Agnes Cotangco
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 2:58 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S Mariposa Condo development
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.

To the Burbank Council,
I live near the proposed development and I'm letting you know once again that I am opposed to this development of condos.

It will create a lot of traffic on Mariposa and adjacent streets and will be detrimental to the people and horses nearby.

Thank you,
Agnes Cotangco
Sent from my iPhone
Sanchez, Maria
From: Chris Devon
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 8:42 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: : Protect Riverside Rancho-Reject the Proposed Condo Development 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 City Council Members,
As an avid rider who lives in Riverside Rancho and uses the trails and Mariposa Equestrian Bridge regularly to access Griffith Park, I'm asking you to reject the proposed 40-unit condo development at 910 S. Mariposa.

This neighborhood isn't just where I live; it's where I ride, connect with my horse, and enjoy the unique blend of equestrian and urban life that makes the Rancho so special. This development threatens all of that. The traffic, noise, and construction would create real safety hazards for equestrians. Horses don't react well to loud noises or sudden movements-spooked horses can lead to serious accidents. Adding congestion near the only equestrian access point to Griffith Park would make riding feel unsafe, and frankly, diminish the character of this one-of-a-kind community.

Beyond these practical concerns, this project doesn't even meet the legal criteria for SB 35 approval. For the project to qualify, 75% of its perimeter must adjoin parcels with "urban uses." The property to the north, Applied Invention, is overwhelmingly categorized as "industrial" —not urban. According to LA County Assessor records, 77.77% of that property is industrial use, which disqualifies this development from streamlined approval. Trying to stretch the definition of "urban" to fit an industrial site is just wrong.

I moved here because of the Rancho's rare equestrian culture and its connection to Griffith Park. This development is completely out of step with what makes our neighborhood so special. Please, for the safety of our riders, the preservation of this community, and adherence to the law, reject this project.

Thank you for listening, and for standing with the Rancho community.

Sincerely,
Chris Devon
Sent from my iPhone
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Jared Ettinger
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 9:48 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: For Public Comment
rent The sender angined fre monteside the organization. Do not lick inks or open attachments unles you Hello City Council team,
ma resident of the or cho derict anen reachine ou to provide compent regarding ahis els because rieve the construction would be an environmental habitat concern.

In my three years as a Rancho resident, I've walked down S. Mariposa (where the proposed condos would be built) on a daily basis. I've seen a great deal of biodiversity in that particular area, including rabbits, squirrels, hummingbirds, hawks, opossum, and several other species. I worry that the increased residential development would displace these creatures and their habitat.

Thank you for taking the time to read and for all the hard work you do for our city.

Best,
Jared Ettinger
Sanchez, Maria
From: Lee Fineman
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 1:05 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Proposed 40-unit multifamily residential project located at 910 South Mariposa Street 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.

The Burbank Rancho Equestrian District is unique and wonderful.

My family and I have lived in the Burbank Rancho since 1978. We have had three horses, one mule, and two donkeys (both Bureau of Land Management rescues).

The proposed 40-unit multifamily residential project located at 910 South Mariposa Street would impose extreme deplorable danger to riders and horses using the Mariposa Bridge, which is adjacent to the proposed project.

The Community Development Staff Report contains no reference to the Burbank Rancho. It contains no reference to horses. It contains no reference to the Mariposa Bridge.

In the interest of safety and decency, the project should be denied.

Lee Fineman. Attornev at Law
Sanchez, Maria
From: Cheryl Kriske
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 1:38 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Condo Development Located at 910 S. Mariposa
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 hope this email finds you well. My name is Cheryl Kriske and I am a 76 year resident, semi-retired business owner and dedicated equestrian of Burbank. I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development of a five- story condominium project near the equestrian bridge to Griffith Park.

As a passionate equestrian who has enjoyed the unique and serene equestrian lifestyle that Burbank offers, I am deeply concerned that this development will negatively impact our community in several significant ways. The area around the equestrian bridge to Griffith Park is not just a path; it is a vital part of our local heritage and daily life for many of us who ride and care for horses in this area.

The introduction of such a large residential development poses several threats, including increased traffic, noise pollution and potential safety hazards for both equestrians and their horses. The peaceful and rural atmosphere that we cherish will be compromised, making it difficult for equestrians to enjoy their activities safely and without undue stress. Additionally, the construction process itself could disrupt local wildlife, further diminishing the character of the neighborhood.
1 urge the City Council to reconsider this proposal and explore alternative locations for high density housing that would not interfere with our cherished equestrian community. Preserving the unique character and heritage of Burbank's equestrian areas is essential for maintaining the quality of life that has drawn many of us to this area.

Thank you for your time to consider my concerns. I hope you will prioritize the preservation of our equestrian lifestyle and heritage in your decision-making process.

Sincerely.

Cheryl Kriske
Sanchez, Maria
From: Alana Silvani
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 3:01 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette; City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Condo
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 was born and raised in Burbank. I grew up having horses in the Burbank/Glendale Rancho. I still have a horse there today 50 years later. I am very concerned about the possibility of this Mariposa Condo building being built. I'm afraid I would have to move my horse out of the area for our safety. Many people that board their horses in the Rancho feel the same way.

Unless you understand the equine brain you may not be aware that horses are prey animals. This means when they feel endangered they flee. You might recall a few years back when a rider was thrown into the river when her horse spooked. She was severely injured.

This project would be terrifying for most horses. Riders will have to pass the construction site to have access to the park.

It will be impossible for myself as well as others to ride past. First there would be excavation for parking. Then they would be bring in a crane, steel beams, heavy duty equipment and machinery. The noise will be unbearable for the neighbors and scare the horses to the point they will bolt and riders and horses would be injured. This project would take well over a year to build and we wouldn't have any access to the park and couldn't even go around the perimeter. I know the boarding stables and rental stables businesses would suffer greatly. As well as the feed and tack stores. LAEC is upgrading the facility and yet might not be able to rent stalls without access to the park. If you can't ride in peace what is the point of staying in the area?
The people that own single family homes off of Mariposa will also be severely compromised because of this project.

Mariposa is a very narrow street. The complete chaos this would cause in this quiet and horse zoned neighborhood is disturbing and destructive to their community. It is more than possible that if this condo is built it would bring in at least 100 more cars in this little neighborhood.

I don't understand how this Mariposa Condo project has gotten this far. The developers that bought this land have no consideration for the Rancho, the neighbors, the animals and surrounding businesses. As far as low income housing that is nothing but a bunch of lip service. How could the city of Burbank allow this to happen? No thought was put into this project whatsoever just more greed. Developers are not trying to make this area a better place they are just interested in making money.

I'm very disappointed in my city, Alana Silvani
Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 11:55 AM
To: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette; Takahashi, Tamala; Anthony, Konstantine Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT 11/24/2024 SINGLE ISSUE RE INDUSTRIAL USE AGENDA ITEM 9 Attachments: Mariposa 2 Analysis re Industrial Use for Council Final November 24 2024 pdf.pdf; SUMMARY OF USE INFORMATION TABLE FINAL November 24 2024 pdf.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.

Dear Mayor Schultz, Vice-Mayor Perez, and Councilmembers Mullins, Takahashi and Anthony, I am writing to you regarding the second request of Butterfly Gardens, LLC (filed December 26, 2023) for an SB35 project at 910 S. Mariposa. This new proposed project is referred to as "Mariposa (2)" and may be found on the City's Active Projects website at (https://www.burbankca.gov/web/community-development/active- projects), under the Development Projects category of "SB35 Projects." Mariposa (2) is set for Public Hearing on November 26, 2024.

This letter seeks to inform you of an analysis of a single-issue concerning Mariposa (2):

Why the property adjoining the northern perimeter boundary of 910 S. Mariposa cannot be considered as developed with "urban uses" within the meaning of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(2)(B); and
Therefore, why Mariposa (2) does not meet the site eligibility requirements for an SB35 project.

The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." But the property on the northern boundary of the project site does not fit the statutory definition of "urban use." That objective standard is not met. And because that objective standard is a requirement of SB 35, and is not met, Mariposa (2) does not qualify for SB 35. Maybe it is eligible for something else, but not SB 35.

There are 3 attachments to this email.

The first attachment is a narrative which contains new information, a review of information previously provided at Council meetings, discussion, and reasoned conclusion of the following:
• The Language of the Statute Regarding the 75% "Urban Use" Perimeter Requirement • Experts' Distinction between "Commercial Use" and "Industrial Use" • The Law of Statutory Interpretation
• Legislative History of "Urban Uses" Specifically Rejects "Industrial Use" • SB 35 and Successor Legislation Regarding "Industrial Uses" • Defining a "Use" as a Combination of "Uses" is Limited to a Combination of Only Those Uses Already Listed in the Statutory Definition of "Urban Uses" • Substantial Proof that the "Use" of the Parcel Adjoining the Northern Perimeter of the Project is an "Industrial Use" and NOT a "Commercial Use"
• Los Angeles County Assessor Property Portal Identifies Use of Property as "Industrial" • Business Application Filed with the City of Burbank Describes an Industrial Use • The Website of Applied Invention Describes a Business which Employs a Team of Experts in Diverse Disciplines, who Design, Build, and Patent Solutions to Complex Puzzles for a Variety of Major Industries
• Description of Applied Invention by Co-Founder, Danny Hillis • Sample of Patents Assigned to Applied Invention
• Distinction Between an "IT Consulting Business" and Applied Invention • Photo-Sonics, Inc., the Former Business on the Northern Perimeter Boundary of 910 S. Mariposa • Incomplete Facts Regarding the "Use" of the Applied Invention Property Provided to Council on December 13, 2022
• New Information Provided at the Public Hearing of July 25, 2023 • Distinction Between an "IT Consulting" and/or "IT Services" Business and the Business of Applied Invention
• Developer's PowerPoint Contradicts His Residential Application Form • New Information Provided in Public Comment
• Additional Evidence Supporting the Fact that Applied Invention is an "Industrial Use" and is Not a "Commercial Use"
• Mariposa (2) NOI and Formal Applications Provide No Basis to Conclude that Applied Invention is a "Commercial" Use
• Developer's Representations Regarding "Use" of Applied Invention • Staff Report Regarding "Use" of the Applied Invention Property • There is Substantial Evidence for a Reasonable Person to Conclude that the Business of Applied Invention is an "Industrial Use"
The second attachment is in table format, and is a Summary of the "Use" Information more fully described in the narrative.

The remaining attachment is a Google Drive link containing a zip folder of all of the Attachments referred to in the narrative. (Note that a few of the Attachments have headers or footers referencing an "exhibit number" or an "attachment number." Those documents were downloaded from Council Agenda materials, and the original reference descriptions have not been altered. Also note that your Google Drive link may say "not scanned for viruses." There are no viruses on any of the attachments. Except for the photos (Attachment 08), all documents are downloads of documents generated by the City of Burbank or the State of California.)
Thank you for your consideration, and for being thorough in your independent review of Mariposa (2).

Respectfully submitted,
Nori Anne Walla
- Attachments Mariposa 2 Uses November 24 2024 zip
• 002C..
2 The Parcel Adjoining 910 S. Mariposa to the North has an "Industrial Use" and therefore 75% of the Perimeter of the Project Is Not Surrounded by "Urban Uses" as Required by SB 35
... ~
The business on the property adjoining the northern perimeter of the Project site, and located within Burbank's M-1 (Light Industrial) Zone, is "Applied Invention." The boundary between Applied Invention and the Project site constitutes 38.8% of the total perimeter of the Project. The use of the property by Applied Invention is an "industrial" use.
"Industrial" is not a "use" listed in the State of California's statutory definition of "urban uses," and because Applied Invention constitutes 38.8% of the perimeter of the Project, the Project site fails to meet the SB 35 objective planning standard that at least 75% of the perimeter of the Project be surrounded by "urban uses" (100% - 38.8% =

62.2%).

I. The Language of the Statute Regarding the 75% "Urban Use" Perimeter Requirement
Government Code Section 65913.4 has been revised repeatedly over the years.

The version of Section 65913.4 (See Attachment 1: GC Section 65913.4, effective July 10, 2023) under which the Notice of Intent (NOI) for Mariposa (2) was filed on December 26, 2023, provides in pertinent part:
65913.4 (a) A development proponent may submit an application for a development that is subject to the streamlined, ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (c) and is not subject to a conditional use permit or any other nonlegislative discretionary approval if the development complies with subdivision (b) and satisfies all of the following objective planning standards:
(2) The development and the site on which it is located satisfy all of the following:
...
(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses. For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be adjoined. (Emphasis added.)
The definition of "urban uses" for purposes of the 75% rule noted above is also stated in Section 65913.4:
1 products, and incidental storage, sales, and distribution. These establishments are characterized by having no major external environmental effects across property lines. Examples include apparel, appliances, batteries, food and beverage products, machinery, pharmaceuticals, soda bottling, and toiletries. (BMC Sec.10-1-203)
Custom Manufacturing: Means the manufacturing of products that are usually handmade and/or are made in small-scale enclosed workshops, involving the use of hand tools, the use of domestic mechanical equipment, or a kiln. This category also includes incidental direct sale to customers of only those goods produced on the site. Examples include clay products, glass blowing, jewelry, leatherworking, metalworking, and woodworking. (BMC Sec. 0-1-203) The M-1 Limited Industrial Zone is intended for the development of industrial uses which include fabrication, manufacturing, assembly, or processing of materials that are in already processed form. (BMC 10-1- 801)
The following requirements shall apply to all uses in an M-1 Zone:

A. All processing and assembly of goods shall be conducted completely within a building that is enclosed on all four (4) sides, unless otherwise specified.

B. Operations that create noise, smoke, ash, dust, odor, ground vibration, heat, glare, humidity, radio disturbance, or radiation shall be so located, and conducted in such a manner, that they do not exceed the standards prescribed in Article 17 of this chapter, measured at the property lines of the use in question (BMC Sec. 10-1-805) III. The Law of Statutory Interpretation
The California Supreme Court has made clear the law of statutory interpretation:
"The statutory language itself is the most reliable indicator, so we start with the statute's words, assigning them their usual and ordinary meanings, and construing them in context. If the words themselves are not ambiguous, we presume the Legislature meant what it said, and the statute's plain meaning governs. On the other hand, if the language allows more than one reasonable construction, we may look to such aids as the legislative history of the measure and maxims of statutory construction. In cases of uncertain meaning, we may also consider the consequences of a particular interpretation, including its impact on public policy." (Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1190.)
3 There were no further amendments to the definitional language of "urban uses" in SB 1925, and thus, pursuant to SB 1925, Section 21072 was added to the Public Resources Code where its language has remained unchanged since its inception.

SB 35 and Successor Legislation Regarding "Industrial Uses" The provisions of SB 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4), have been amended multiple times since its adoption in September, 2017. But throughout those many iterations, the definition of "urban uses," derived from Public Resources Code Section 21072, has remained unchanged. That definition has never contained the term "industrial," and, in fact, there has been no mention of "industrial uses" in Government Code Section 65913.4 until SB 6 and its companion legislation, AB 2011, were adopted in September of 2022.

In SB 6 and AB 2011, the Legislature specitically addressed affordable housing sites proposed on land, or adjacent to land, within which there is an "industrial use." In doing so, the Legislature not only provided definitions of "industrial use," but also provided limitations on the amount of a parcel devoted to "industrial use." Lawmakers even provided in some instances, that a proposed project may not be located adjacent to a parcel with an "industrial use."
Thus, when the Legislature decided to expand the potential sites for affordable housing via a streamlined ministerial approval process in SB 6 and AB 2011, to include certain sites containing "industrial uses, "" it chose to create an exception to the general statutory definition of "urban uses" rather than change the general definition.

The Legislature did so by specifying, in additional subdivisions within those respective statutes, the limited criteria under which mandated streamlined affordable housing projects may be located on, or adjacent to, an "industrial use." ' Furthermore, in the version of SB 35 under which the developer filed his NOl in Mariposa (2) (effective July 10, 2023 pursuant to AB 130), and in SB 423 (effective January 1, 2024), the Legislature again maintained the statutory definition of "urban uses" which first appeared in SB 1925, and which excludes "industrial" uses, while again specifying in additional subdivisions of Government Code Section 65913.4, the limited criteria under which mandated streamlined affordable housing projects may be located on, or adjacent to, an "industrial use."
The Legislature states what it means. If the Legislature intended to include "industrial" sites in addition to residential, commercial, public institutional, transit, or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, in the general definition of "urban uses" it could have easily done so by adding one word to that general definition - "industrial." But it did not.

This retention of the original statutory definition of "urban uses," while adding the specific subsections specifying under what conditions an "industrial use" site may 5 Business Application Filed with the City of Burbank Describes an Industrial Use In its Business Application for the City of Burbank, Applied Invention described itself by checking 2 boxes on the Burbank Business Application form: (1) "Assembly/Manufacturing" and (2) "Services, Personal or Business." In an attachment to their form, Applied Invention described their business more fully in a narrative:
"Applied Invention, Al for short, is a multi-disciplinary innovation company that designs, builds, and develops technology solutions in partnership with leading companies and entrepreneurs. We are an interdisciplinary group of engineers, scientists, and artists, with skills in electronics, mechanics, physics, biology:
mathematics, software development, systems engineering and industrial design.

Our projects range from biotechnology, computer vision, database software, data analytics, high performance computing, medical devices, robotics, and generally complex systems."
In their Business Application, they also provided some historical context regarding the business:
"In 2014, Al was spun-off from Applied Minds where the team was responsible for starting new companies including Applied Proteomics, Inc., Metaweb Technologies, Inc. (acquired by Google) and TouchShare, Inc., and developed technology solutions with partners such as General Motors, Herman Miller, Sun Microsystems, Northrop Grumman and Intel Corporation." (See Attachment 7:

Applied Invention Business License Application)
The Website of Applied Invention Describes a Business which Employs a Team of Experts in Diverse Disciplines, who Design, Build, and Patent Solutions to Complex Puzzles for a Variety of Major Industries
The website for Applied Invention (https://www.appliedinvention.com/) contains a Wikipedia link to "Danny Hillis" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny Hillis), the founder of Applied Invention.

That link includes a list of all the companies he has founded or co-founded in his lengthy career as an inventor, entrepreneur, and computer scientist.

As a student at MIT, he designed computer-oriented toys and games, tendon- controlled robot arms, and a touch-sensitive robot "skin." As Vice-President of Research and Development at Disney Imagineering, he not only developed new technologies, but also designed new theme park rides, a full-size walking dinosaur, and various micro mechanical devices. As Professor of Research Medicine at the Keck School of Medicine of USC, he helped create a research program on cancer and proteomics, and co-founded Applied Proteomics which developed one of the first protein biomarker discovery platforms and a blood test for early-stage colon cancer. He is a Professor of Engineering at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, and the first principal investigator of the National Cancer Institute's Physical Sciences in Oncology Laboratory at USC.

Danny Hillis is the inventor of the "10,000-year clock." It is a huge clock inside a mountain that will tick for 10,000 years. It is real. (See the 4-minute video describing 7 prediction of progression of a disease such as cancer with and without therapeutic intervention.)
Detailed patent information at: https://patents.justia.com/patent/10867706 • A motorized, interactive, self-calibrating portable telescope.

Detailed patent information for multiple patents at:
https://patents.justia.com/patent/10078208
https://patents.justia.com/patent/9223126
• Wind turbine defense to escape high wind events. (The invention provides a number of passive and active defense designs and methods for lowering the elevated portion of a wind turbine, and ways to connect the elevated portion of a wind turbine to the tower.)
Detailed patent information at: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9624904 • Squeezable musical toy with looping and decaying score and variable capacitance stress sensor. (A toy that makes a different noise depending upon where it is touched).

Detailed patent information at: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9259658 • Systems, structures, and processes with embedded resistance device. (An example is a stuffed toy that provides the user with visual, auditory, or physical feedback in response to being touched in a particular location - like smartphone screen that might provide a button-click sensation).

Detailed patent information at: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9339116 • Method and apparatus maintaining eye contact in video delivery systems using view morphing. (This invention relates to the field of video conferencing, and in particular, to methods and systems maintaining the appearance of eye contact between communicants in a teleconference.)
Detailed patent information at: https://patents.justia.com/patent/9215408 Distinction Between an "IT Consulting Business" and Applied Invention To "invent" something is "to produce (something, such as a useful device or process) for the first time through the use of the imagination or of ingenious thinking and experiment." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/invent) In contrast, "Information technology (IT) consultants help companies keep up with the ever-developing technological world. This type of consultant is relevant to every business, regardless of size. IT consultants work with technical components such as system integration, software management and data analytics." (https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/consultant) Applied Invention is not an "IT Consulting" Business. They are in fact, as described on their Business Permit Application - "an interdisciplinary group of 9 Photo-Sonics was decidedly a Light Industrial use, which included Research & Development and Custom Manufacturing of high-speed video cameras and motion picture equipment. (See Attachment 9: Photo-Sonics, Inc. Business License Application.)
Originally formed in 1952 to design, manufacture and distribute photo-optical instrumentation for the motion picture industry, in 1954 Photo-Sonics won major contracts from IBM and Goodyear for special film movements used in the bomb guidance and navigation system of the B-52 bomber. This was followed by many years of designing high-speed rotary prism and other cameras used by the armed forces.

Today, Photo-Sonics manufactures and distributes a complete line of photo-optical instrumentation that is used around the world for the test and evaluation of weapon systems and automotive crash testing. They continue to manufacture high-speed photography and many other applications for the entertainment industry. (See history of Photo-Sonics, Inc. including list of company milestones at https://www.photosonics.com/company history.htm#history 31) V. Incomplete Facts Regarding the "Use" of the Applied Invention Property Provided to Council on December 13, 2022
On December 13, 2022, in a Report to Council regarding SB 35 site eligibility of the 910 S. Mariposa Project, the Staff Report and the Staff Presentation both advised Council that the use of the property on the northern boundary of the Project site is a "commercial use." Neither their Report, nor their Presentation, identified the name of the business as Applied Invention.

Missing from the Staff Report and Attachments provided to Councilmembers at the December 13, 2022 meeting, was the complete NOl package of documents. Staff did not provide to the City Council - the decision-makers - the required information directly related to their decision on site eligibility. Had Staff provided the relevant information, the decision-makers would have received a complete package, including a letter from KTGY (the developer's planning/architect form), that identified the uses of all the properties surrounding the Project site. KTGY identified the land use of the property at the northern perimeter of the Project (Applied Invention) as industrial. (See Attachment 10: Letter of KTGY dated October 26, 2022, page 3.) The Staff Report contained a table identifying all the uses surrounding the Project site. In that table, staff identified the "use" of the property on the northern boundary (Applied Invention) as "commercial office uses with surface parking." The Staff Report and the Staff PowerPoint for that meeting both contained a "Site Aerial Map" which shows an aerial view of the Project site in the context of the surrounding neighborhood.

Within that Site Aerial Map is the property of Applied Invention.

This Site Aerial Map is devoid of any clue as to what takes place inside the structures on the northern boundary of the Project site. There is no basis from which to extrapolate the "use" of the property by looking at the Site Aerial Map, other than to see surface parking. The Staff reached an unsupported conclusion based on a mere picture - the Site Aerial Map. (See Attachment 11: Site Aerial Map (the notation of "Attachment 11 • The letter from KTGY in the NOI stating that the use of the Applied Invention property is "industrial," (See Attachment 10.)
• The letter from KTGY in the Formal Submission stating that the use of the Applied Invention property is "industrial" (see Attachment 13, KTGY Formal Submission Letter 4 25 2023), and
• The developer's own opinion as stated in his General Commercial and Industrial Development Permit attached to his SB 35 Residential Application that "The property to the North of the site is also zoned M-1 and is currently being utilized for light industrial activities." (See Attachment 14: Developer's General Commercial and Industrial Development Permit, dated 4 25 2023, page 3, #17.)
The Staff Report for the Public Hearing contained the same table of "uses" provided to Council for the December 13, 2022 meeting, The Report continued to state that the "use" of the property on the northern boundary is "commercial office uses with surface parking."
However, in staff's oral presentation at the Public Hearing, new information was introduced that was not contained in the Staff Report for the Public Hearing, nor presented at the December 2022 Council meeting: staff had reviewed the website for Applied Invention.

Staff stated that their review of the website revealed the following information:
• The business includes offices with a "range of activities including IT consulting services;"
• The company website identifies that the use of the property includes a "corporate office," and
• "They are an IT services and consulting company."
Staff further stated that "an IT services company" is "typically a general office use," which is permitted by right in the M-1 Light Industrial Zone.

Therefore, staff concluded that their December 2022 assessment, apparently based only on a picture - the Site Aerial Map, was correct, and that the use of the property by Applied Invention is "commercial office uses with surface parking." Staff further stated that because the Applied Invention website stated that the Mariposa property is a "corporate office," that "office is considered a permitted commercial use" in the Burbank zone code, "and therefore an urban use under the state definition." As noted earlier, an examination of the Applied Invention website actually reveals the following:
• Applied Invention describes its business as "a multidisciplinary innovation company that partners with corporations to design and build new "
technologies...
• Applied Invention is "a group of experienced technologists that have especially strong skills in building complex systems that incorporate data analytics, artificial 13 technologies, then they apply that new technology to produce devices and goods that have never been built before.

Developer's PowerPoint Contradicts His Residential Application Form The developer completed a Residential Application Form in his Formal Submission. In that Residential Application Form, dated April 25, 2023, the developer identified the use of the property adjoining the Project site to the north (Applied Invention) as "currently being utilized for light industrial activities." (See Attachment

14.)
However, in his PowerPoint Presentation on July 25, 2023, the developer produced a "table of uses" regarding the properties surrounding the Project site, including the property of Applied Invention. In that table, the developer stated that the use of the property by Applied Invention is "commercial office uses with surface parking," reiterating the words of staff and contradicting himself. (See Attachment 14a:

Developer's PowerPoint, page
New Information Provided in Public Comment
New Information provided at the Public Hearing by members of the public included the following, either orally or in writing:
• Definitions showing that a "Commercial" use is NOT synonymous with an "Industrial" use:

Understanding the Basics of LAND USE AND PLANNING: Glossary of Land Use and Planning Terms" by The Institute for Local Government (2010), pages 11 and 30, provide the following definitions of "Commercial" and "Industrial" land uses:

Commercial. A land use classification that permits facilities for the buying and selling of commodities and services
Industrial. A land use classification often divided into "heavy industrial" uses, like construction yards, quarrying, and factories; and "light industrial" uses, like research and development and less intensive warehousing and manufacturing.
(See Attachment 2: "Understanding the Basics of LAND USE AND PLANNING: Glossary of Land Use and Planning Terms © 2010 by The Institute for Local Government," pages 11 and 30.)
• Copy of the Business Application of Applied Invention which clearly shows that they are not simply an "IT services company" but rather that they are engaged in Research & Development and Custom Manufacturing." (See Attachment 7.) • The Business Application further states that Applied Invention is a multi- disciplinary innovation company that designs, builds, and develops technology solutions, and that they are an inter-disciplinary group of engineers, scientists,:
and artists, with skills in electronics, mechanics, physics, biology, mathematics, 15 • The California Supreme Court case of Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4" 1164, 1190, provides the law of statutory interpretation. (Section III, page 3.)
• The Legislative History of "Urban Uses" shows that the definition of "Urban Uses" specifically rejected "industrial use" as part of the statutory definition. (Section III, page 4.)
• Continuing the trend of SB 6 and AB 2011, successor legislation in SB 35 and SB 423 maintains original definition of "urban uses" and add subsections addressing "industrial use." (Section III, pages 4-5.)
• Defining a "Use" as a Combination of "Uses" shall not include "industrial" as that use is not listed in the statutory definition of "urban uses." (Section III, page 6.) • Los Angeles County Property Profile not only defines the use of the Applied Invention property as "industrial," it shows that 77.7% of that land is classified as an "industrial use." (Section IV, page 6.)
• A thorough examination of the website of Applied Invention shows that the business consists of experts in diverse disciplines who design, build, and patent new technologies and inventions, dispelling the theory that the business of the company is "IT consulting." (Section IV, page 7-8.)
• Video of the "10,000-year Clock" illustrates the process of this invention, from concept, to design, to build, and how a multi-disciplinary team, including Danny Hillis, the co-founder of Applied Invention, produces something that has never been produced before. (Section IV, page 7.)
• Video of Danny Hillis, the co-founder of Applied Invention, describing Applied Invention and its three main principles, and stating that the company can do just about anything, and has machine shops, electronic shops, smart mathematicians, and biologists, and has built everything from satellites to blood tests, to robots. (Section IV, page 8.)
• Partial list of patents assigned to Applied Invention for technologies and devices that they have invented and patented. (Section IV, pages 8-9.) • Definitions of "IT Consulting" and "Inventing" which clearly show that Applied Invention is in the business of inventing processes and devices that have never been produced before, and that they are not an "IT consulting" business. (Section IV, pages 9-10.)
• Photos of the entrance to Applied Invention. (Section IV, page 10.) • "Industrial use" by the former business, "Photo-Sonics, Inc." at the location of Applied Invention at 820 S. Mariposa, shows continuity of "industrial use" (manufacturing) from 1959 to the present, with Copy of Business License Application of Photo-Sonics and website of Photo-Sonics. (See Section IV, pages 10-11.) 17 Assessor's Office has determined that 77.77% of the property classified, is classified as "industrial." (See Section IV, page 6.)
In connection with his Formal Submission, the Developer filed a new General Commercial and Industrial Development Permit on May 3, 2024. In that document, the Developer states that the property to the north of the Project, Applied Invention, has a "commercial" use.

In contrast, that same form was completed by the Developer on April 25, 2023, and on that date, he described the use of the Applied Invention property as "utilized for light industrial activities." (See Section IV, page 13.) There is no evidence of change in use of that property from April 25, 2023 to May 3, 2024. Both documents are signed under penalty of perjury.

Staff Report Regarding "Use" of the Applied Invention Property The Staff Report for the November 26, 2024 Public Hearing addresses the "use" of the Applied Invention property on page 7. In that Report, Staff states 3 reasons why Applied Invention is a "commercial" use:

1. The business license describes the use as general office;

2. "Additional classifications from the National American Industry Classification System (NAICS) have been identified to classify the business," and that "NAICS codes that have been used for Applied Invention, LLC include systems engineering (5413301) and computer vision (518210-20)." Staff further states that industries with NAICS codes that begin with 54 are professional, scientific, and technical services sector companies comprised of establishments that specialize in performing professional, scientific, and technical activities for others. Staff therefore concludes that "this description reflects the general office designation listed on the business license."

3. Burbank's Building and Safety Division categorizes Applied Invention as a "Miscellaneous Business Service" based on the company's own description of who they are: "Applied Invention is a multidisciplinary innovation company that partners with corporations to design and build new technologies to help them grow and adapt to rapidly changing environments."
Staff's reasoning for classifying Applied Invention as a commercial business has changed over time.

On December 13, 2022, both the Staff Report and the Staff Presentation concluded that Applied Invention was a commercial use because a Site Aerial Map showed "commercial offices and surface parking."
This Site Aerial Map is devoid of any clue as to what takes place inside the structures on the northern boundary of the Project site. There is no basis from which to extrapolate the "use" of the property by looking at the Site Aerial Map, other than to see surface parking. The Staff reached an unsupported conclusion based on a mere picture 19 There is nothing in the Applied Invention website that says the business includes offices with a "range of activities including IT consulting services," nor does it say they are in the business of "IT services." It simply says no such thing. Please look at the website: https://www.appliedinvention.com/
Finally, while all the commercial and industrial zones in the Burbank Zoning Code, except for MDM-1, permit a by-right "office," it is only in the M-1 zone that Custom Manufacturing and Light Industrial Manufacturing is allowed by-right, and a "Computer Service Center" is not permitted in the M-1 Zone. (BMC Section 10-1-502) For the upcoming November 26, 2024 Public Hearing, the Staff Report states that the reason for the commercial use designation is because the business license says general office, a category determined by staff; NAICS codes for Applied Invention include codes for "systems engineering" and "computer vision," and that the description of those codes reflect a general office designation, and because Building and Safety categorizes Applied Invention as a "Miscellaneous Business Service." In 2017, Applied Invention submitted an application for a Business License describing its operations at 820 S. Mariposa Street, in check-box form, as "Assembly/Manufacturing" and "Services, Personal and Business." In response to a question inquiring what machines or equipment will be used "other than typical office equipment," the Business License application states: "waterjet, 3D printer, CNC machine, lathe machine." (See Attachment 7.)
According to Wikipedia, a waterjet is "an industrial tool capable of cutting a wide variety of materials using an extremely high-pressure jet of water." A "CNC" (computer numerical control) machine is used to operate "drills, lathes, mills, grinders, routers and 3D printers" which "transforms a piece of material (metal, plastic, wood, ceramic, stone, or composite) into a specified shape by following coded programmed instructions and without a manual operator directly controlling the machining operation." A lathe machine is used in woodturning, metalworking, metal spinning, thermal spraying, reclamation, and glass-working
This is not equipment used in a "general office," and "Miscellaneous Business Service" is simply a catch-all category if the business does not otherwise fall into the City's pre-programmed categories.

The permit history for 820 S. Mariposa Street (See Attachment 15) demonstrates that the site is improved with a 36,000 square foot structure with a Certificate of Occupancy for "Factory and Office" uses (Attachment 15, page 82). California Building Code (CBC) section 306.1 defines Group "F" ("Factory Industrial Group F") occupancy as "the use of a building or structure, or a portion thereof, for assembling, disassembling, fabricating, finishing, manufacturing, packaging, repair or processing operations that are not classified as Group H hazardous or Group S storage occupancy." After the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, various permits described the existing main building as "Industrial" (Attachment 15, page 132), "Manufacturing" (Attachment 15, page 120), or "Machine Shop" (Attachment 15, pages 86 and116). And there are permits for "Oil Barrel Storage" (Attachment 15, page 135) and "Industrial Waste Discharge" (Attachment 15, page 126). 21 The category "Miscellaneous Business Service" is simply a catch-all category when the description of the business does not otherwise appear to fit in a list of pre-determined categories. It certainly does not reflect a company that is actually in the business of Custom Manufacturing and Research and Development, that has designed, built, and patented "everything from satellites to blood tests, to robots." Thus, the fact that the business license has a staff code reflecting "Miscellaneous Business Service," is insufficient evidence of the "use" of the Applied Invention property, especially considering the substantial evidence presented of what the company really does.

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. (https://www.census.gov/naics/) NAICS was originally developed to provide a consistent framework for the collection, analysis, and dissemination of industrial statistics used by government policy analysts, by academics and researchers, by the business community, and by the public. NAICS does not determine whether a property use is "industrial" or "commercial." The design and the purpose of NAICS is to determine how much money is generated from various economic sectors.

Among the 20 industry sectors that NAICS tracks, it is not surprising that Applied Invention may include the classification of "Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services." After all, the description on the Applied Invention business application describes a business that includes professionals, scientists, technicians, and the like.

There is no NAICS classification for "Inventors." Applied Invention is an interdisciplinary team of engineers, scientists, and artists, with skills in electronics, mechanics, physics, biology, mathematics, software development, systems engineering and industrial design. Together, they design and build new technologies (See Section IV, pages 6-10, for a complete description of the business of Applied Invention.) IX. There is Substantial Evidence on the record for a Reasonable Person to Conclude that the Business of Applied Invention is an "Industrial Use" Site eligibility is an objective planning standard.

Government Code Section 65913.4(c)(3) requires that for a local government to conclude that a Project qualifies for SB 35, there must be a finding of substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective planning standards.

From all the information presented to Council at the December 13, 2022 Council meeting, combined with all the new information presented to Council at the 7/25/2023 Public Hearing, and further combined with new information provided here, it is clear that substantial evidence does not allow a reasonable person to conclude that Applied Invention is a "commercial" use, and thus, that the Project is not surrounded by 75% statutory "urban uses," and thus, the development is not consistent with the statutory objective planning standards.
23 1 Section 65913.4 was amended January 1, 2023 pursuant to SB 6:
65913.4(a)(2)(B) At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with urban uses.

For the purposes of this section, parcels that are only separated by a street or highway shall be considered to be (C)(i) A site that meets the requirements of clause (ii) and satisfies any of the following:
(I) The site is zoned for residential use or residential mixed-use development. (II) the site has a general plan designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses.
(III) The site is zoned for office or retail commercial use and meets the requirements of Section Section 65852.24 referenced above in (C)(i)(III) states:
(b)(6)(B)(i) It is not on a site or adjoined to any site where more than one-third of the square footage on the site is dedicated to industrial use.
(ii) For purposes of this subparagraph, "dedicated to industrial use" means either of the following:
(1) The square footage is currently being used as an industrial use. (Il) The most recently permitted use of the square footage is an industrial use. (III) The site was designated for industrial use in the latest version of a local government's general plan adopted before January 1, 2022.
2 APN # 2443-004-020:

Subpart 0105: 36,653 square feet; Design Type 3100 (3 = Industrial; 1 = Light Industrial; 0 = Unused or Unknown) Subpart 0205: 1,743 square feet; Design Type 0110 (0 = Residential; 1 = Single Family Residence; 1= Floor or Wall Heat; 0 = Unused or Unknown)
Subpart 0305: 8,350 square feet; Design Type 2700 (2 = Commercial; 7 = Parking Lot (Commercial or Patron); 0 = Unused or Unknown)
Subpart 0405: 400 square feet; Design Type 3010 (3 = Industrial; 0 = Industrial; 1 = Misc. Industrial; and 0 = Unused or Unknown)
Subpart 0505: 498 square feet; Design Type 2800 (2 = Commercial; 8 = Animal Kennel; 0 = Unused or Unknown) 25 SUMMARY OF "USE" INFORMATION - 820 S. MARIPOSA
MARIPOSA (1) MARIPOSA (1) MARIPOSA (2)
December 13, 2022 Site Eligibility Report July 25, 2023 Public Hearing November 26, 2024 Public Hearing Staff Report & Attached Documents Staff Report & Attached Documents Staff Report & Attached Documents Based on Site Aerial Map, staff position is Business License issued for Applied that property is commercial office uses Both NOl and Formal Submission letters Invention describes use as general office. with surface parking and therefore a from KTGY (Developer's architect) Building & Safety categorizes Applied commercial use. (Note: Site Aerial Map conclude that use is industrial. (See Invention as "Miscellaneous Business does not show nature of activity inside pages 11 and 13.) Service" based on company's own structures.) (See pages 11-12.) description. (See page 19.) NAICS codes have been identified to
classify Applied Invention as specializing
Formal Submission Residential
Not Provided to Council for the Meeting: in performing professional, scientific, and Application form filed by Developer states
KTGY (Developer's architect) NOl letter technical activities for others. Staff Applied Invention property being utilized
stating use by Applied Invention is concludes that the NAICS code industrial. (See page 11.) for light industrial activities. (See pages description reflects the general office
13 and 15.)
designation placed on the business
license. (See page 19.)
Developer's attorney omits site eligibility
Staff maintains that the Applied Invention
in his letters submitted for both the NOI
website shows that the business is IT
and for the Formal Submission.
services and IT consulting, with a
Developer's new planning/architectural
corporate office located on the property,
and that staff's original conclusion that firm (BOLADarck), in both his NOl and the Formal Submission, states that the
commercial offices and surface parking
property of Applied Invention is industrial
land uses are correct because office is a
and commercial according to the LA
permitted commercial use and therefore
County Assessor's APN#, and that as a
an urban use within the statute.
commercial use, it is an urban use. (Note
(Note: Website does not state that
Mariposa location is a "corporate office" that the APN# identifies the Use Type of the overall property as industrial.) (See
nor does it state Applied Invention is in
pages 17-18.)
1 Business Application of Applied Invention
states they are a multi-disciplinary
innovation company that designs, builds,
and develops technology solutions, and Website of Applied Invention shows that that they are an inter-disciplinary group the business consists of experts in diverse of engineers, scientists, and artists, with disciplines who design, build, and patent skills in electronics, mechanics, physics, new technologies and inventions. (See biology, mathematics, software pages 8 and 13 - 14.)
development, systems engineering and
industrial design. (See pages 7, 15 and

16.)
Advise Council that KTGY concluded
Video of Danny Hillis, co-founder of
Applied Invention was an industrial use in
their NOI letter and in their Formal Applied Invention, describing the business of Applied Invention. (See pages
Submission Residential Application letter. 8 and 17.)
(See pages 15 and 16.)
On form submitted with his Formal
Submission Residential Application, the
Partial list of patents assigned to Applied
Developer identified the use of the
Invention. (See pages 8-9 and 17.)
property as light industrial. (See pages 12
and 15.)
Copies of records produced from City of
Burbank Building & Safety showing Photos of the entrance to Applied historical use by prior business (Photo- Invention and what was in the tent. (See Sonics) was industrial (manufacturing) pages 10 and 17.) which remains in place. (See page 16.)
The plain language of the statute does
Definitions of "IT Consulting" and
not include industrial as an urban use.
"Inventing." (See pages 9, 14, and 17.)
(See page 3.)
Successor legislation to SB 35 (SB 6 and NAICS classifies business establishments AB 2011) specifically address industrial for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, uses by adding subsections as opposed to and publishing statistical data related to changing definition of urban use. (See the U.S. business economy. (See page Ine:
pages 5 - 6.) 23.)
3 Custom Manufacturing support use of
Applied Invention as industrial. (See page

2.)
California Supreme Court case definition
of statutory interpretation verifies that
statute means what it says. (See page 3.)
Legislative History of definition of urban
uses shows legislature specifically
rejected industrial use as part of statutory
definition of urban uses: (See pages 4-5.)
SB 35 and SB 423 successor legislation
maintain original definition of urban uses
and add subsections addressing industrial
use. (See page 5.)
A hybrid or hyphenated "use" can only
include those uses that are actually listed
in the statutory definition of urban use.
(See page 6.)
Council Resolution of July 25, 2024
includes a finding of "light industrial uses"
in their determination of "urban uses."
(See page 24.)
5 Sanchez, Maria
From: Kimberley Smith
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:28 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: Public Comment: No to Condo Expansion
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 Schultz,
I am writing as a Burbank, Rancho resident to vote NO to the expansion of the 910 S. Mariposa development, slated to be 5 stories and 40 units with subterranean parking. This massive project poses serious risks to our community and Rancho culture, and I beg you to fight against developers who are exploiting the spirit of SB35 at the expense of our community and culture. The proposed expansion creates

2. 3. Traffic

4. Congestion:

5. The narrow, one-lane roads around Mariposa and adjacent neighborhoods cannot sustain the significant increase in traffic this development would generate. These streets are vital corridors for both vehicular and equestrian use, and the added congestion would

6. disrupt the area's unique dynamics.

7. 8.

9. 10. Equestrian

11. Safety Threats:

12. This location is in the heart of Riverside Rancho's equestrian community, adjacent to Studio Horse Rentals and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridgeone of the only access points for riders entering Griffith Park. Horses, as prey animals, are sensitive to noise and

13. activity. Construction noise and increased traffic could cause severe accidents, as seen in past incidents involving startled horses. This endangers riders, pedestrians, and the animals themselves.

14. 15.

16. 17. Impact

18. on the Wildlife Corridor and Access to Griffith Park:

19. The area serves as an essential wildlife corridor connecting the Los Angeles River and Griffith Park.

Large-scale development here would disrupt local ecosystems, jeopardizing both flora and fauna.

Furthermore, the environmental strain of such a project contradicts

20. efforts to preserve Burbank's natural heritage.

21. 22.

23. 24. Community

25. Identity:

26. Riverside Rancho is a historic equestrian community that contributes to Burbank's distinct identity. • Placing high-density housing in this neighborhood undermines its character, which is built on harmonious coexistence between urban and equestrian lifestyles.

27. I challenge the council to prioritize the preservation of our community's safety, heritage, and environment over short-term development gains. I urge you to act decisively to reject this project and consider more appropriate uses for the site.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Kim Smith
Sanchez, Maria
From: Mark Amparan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 4:38 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Agenda item 9--Mariposa (2)
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.

Honorable Council Members:

On the upcoming Tuesday, Nov. 26 meeting, I urge you to reject the new application called "Mariposa (2)", agenda item

9. Reasons for rejection:

1. Increased traffic congestion and resultant safety concerns for pedestrians, equestrians, runners, and other users of the bridge and general area.

2. Negative effect on natural habitat and sensitive species.

3. Does not meet SB 35 requirements.

4. Changes the character of the area from a more natural, rural feeling to a more congested, urban setting.

Thank you for considering my remarks.

Mark Amparan
Sanchez, Maria
From: Susie Andrews
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:15 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Reject the MASSIVE 910 S. Mariposa Condo Development 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 City Council Members,
As a homeowner in Riverside Rancho and a grandparent of a girl who cherishes horses and benefits deeply from this community, I implore you to reject the proposed condo development at 910 S. Mariposa. This decision is not just about one project-it's about preserving the character, safety, and integrity of a neighborhood cherished by residents and generations to come.

Legally, the project fails to meet the requirements for SB 35 approval. For a development to qualify, 75% of the perimeter must adjoin parcels with "urban uses." However, the property to the north-Applied Invention-is classified predominantly as industrial, with 77.77% of its use deemed industrial by the LA County Assessor. Industrial uses do not qualify as urban uses," making this project ineligible under the law.

The project threatens the safety of equestrians and pedestrians alike. Increased traffic of large construction equipment on the single lane street will create hazardous conditions for children, joggers, walkers, and riders, especially near the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge, a critical link to Griffith Park. Furthermore, this development would bring substantial disruption to a neighborhood carefully designed to support its equestrian identity.

By approving this development, the Council risks permanently damaging the unique fabric of the Rancho, a place that attracts families like mine for its rare blend of urban and equestrian life. Your vote will set a precedent with lasting implications. Please protect this community and reject the 910S. Mariposa project.

Sincerely,
Susan Andrews
Sanchez, Maria
From: Steve Apostolina
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:16 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: 910 S. Mariposa
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 Members,
My name is Steve Apostolina and | have been residing in Burbank since 1999 and moved to the Rancho in 2011. We love with its small town feel. We were especially attracted to the Rancho because of its location next to Griffith Park and the melding of
old world with new world - horses and automobiles. It is a peaceful place to live where you are minutes away from urban lifestyle. On the day we
moved into our place on South Reese Place, a horse and buggy passed by and waved to us - a memory that is ingrained in our minds.

While we don't have horses ourselves, we are neighbors to many horse owners and are empathetic to their plight. Most of them moved to this area
specifically so they could enjoy an equestrian lifestyle - something that will be adversely affected by the proposed condos. I've crossed the bridge countless times with my dog to hike in Griffith Park and can't imagine not having access.

Lately, on my daily walks with my dog, I have noticed the traffic congestion and how it has grown since we first moved in 13 years ago. I can only imagine
the impact once Pickwick is done and Mariposa would only add to this congestion. Surely you all can see this - it's quite evident.

Please consider Not approving this development and allow at least one area in Burbank to remain quaint and less congested
Warm regards
Steve Apostolina
Sanchez, Maria
From: Joanne Asman
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:51 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 Mariposa Street Project on Tonights 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 Members,
As a long time Rancho Resident who moved to Burbank just because of the Rancho's Atmosphere 27 years ago, 1 am against the project for many reasons.

1. Narrowness of Mariposa Street. A car and truck cannot go up and down at the same time as it is now.

2. Sewer system. We already have major sewer problems in the neighborhood due to the old pipes.

1. SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S.

Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE

SPECIES
910 Mariposa 2 biologist report was inadequate.

3. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of
individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreational.

4. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby
streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, I rucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers. The neighborhood is filled with people walking dogs several times a day. The traffic will make a danger to both the Pedistrian walking, but the dogs on the leashes.

5. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction
activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

6. Crime. So far our neighborhood has not had a very bad Crime situation, but add all those additional Condo's and additional traffic, it will get much worse.

Thank you for reading this and voting to keep the Condo's out until more research is done.

Joanne & John Asman
2 Please keep our neighborhood
Sanchez, Maria
From: debra avery
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:55 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Public hearing tonight 910 Mariposa st Burbank 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 Counsel,
Bases on my 30+ experience in the Rancho community and at LAEC I strongly oppose the building currently proposed at 910 Mariposa St.

This is a unique and sensitive neighborhood that would be greatly diminished and damaged by the construction and existence of condominiums in this location.

Please do the right thing and stop the building of such an out of scale and oppressive element in our neighborhood.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Debra Averv
Sanchez, Maria
From: Lusine Bagramyan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 20242:30 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Fwd: Strong Support for the Butterfly Gardens Development on Mariposa Street 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 City Council,
I have worked and lived in Burbank for 15 years.

I'm writing to show my support for the Butterfly Gardens project on Mariposa Street. I think it's a great project and will be really helpful for our community. The project is well thought out and will benefit the future residents and the neighborhood overall.

One thing I really like about this project is how it includes both private and public open spaces. It's not just about building more houses, it's about giving people areas to relax and enjoy, which will make it a better place to live. These spaces will help people connect with each other and feel more at home.

The project will also do a lot for the neighborhood itself. The improvements to Mariposa Street will make it safer and easier for people to get around, whether they walk, bike, drive, or even ride horses. It's a good way to keep the charm of the area while making it safer and more livable for everyone.

Another big plus is how this development connects to Griffith Park through the Mariposa Bridge. This gives people who live there easy access to the park, which is an awesome way to live close to nature without leaving the city.

I also like that they've thought about horse access. There are already trails for horses that lead to the Mariposa Bridge, and those will stay the same, so no one will have to worry about crossing the development or Mariposa Street. The project respects the area's history with horses, and it's good to see that's being taken into account.

I really believe this project can fit in with the neighborhood's horse culture and the needs of the people moving in. It's a win-win for everyone, and I hope the City Council will approve it.

Thanks for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Lucy Bagramyan
Sanchez, Maria
From: Tarrah Barbour
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 5:17 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Mullins, Zizette; Takahashi, Tamala
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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 City Council,
Thank you for reading my Public comment for Agenda item 9, Mariposa 2. Appreciate your time! 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreationally. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying responses from first responders during critical situations.

Tarrah Barbour
Sanchez, Maria
From: Vartan Barsegyan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 6:14 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Support for 910 S Mariposa Project
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 City Council:

As a long-time resident of Burbank, I am writing to express my strong support for the Butterfly Gardens Project at 910 south Mariposa in the Rancho neighborhood. Inis development is an important step in addressing our city's ongoing housing crisis, and I urge you to approve it.

California is experiencing a historic housing shortage, and Burbank is no exception. Burbank has simply failed to keep pace with the growing demand for new housing. As a property owner in the Rancho neighborhood, I have not seen any new development in the Rancho area until recently.

Rancho has not done their part in contributing to the housing supply in our city. To meet the needs of our community and ease the affordability burden, we must take action to create more housing.

The Butterfly Gardens Project, which includes 40 units including 6 for low income housing will make a meaningful contribution to our city's housing supply. It will provide much-needed opportunities for first-time homebuyers, which is especially critical as the cost of living in Burbank continues to rise.

It's essential that all neighborhoods, including Rancho, play their part in addressing the city's housing needs. The Butterfly Gardens Project offers a thoughtful, well-planned solution that benefits our entire community.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Vartan Barsegyan
Burbank Resident
Sanchez, Maria
From: Veronica Christenson
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 7:22 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2 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 City Council,
I am submitting the video of my presentation that was made to you, the Burbank Council, last year on 10/24/ 2023, concerning the extreme danger posed at the trail that leads from the west to east approach to the Mariposa bridge and is directly adjacent to the site of proposed construction at 910 Mariposa, Burbank. (Indeed, dangers exist at other points along the LA river channel and the Burbank horse trails as well).

To reiterate, the dangers still persist, and the exacerbation that any construction on the scale of a 5 story, 40 unit condo would create, is almost unimaginable. Huge machinery, loud and unexpected noises, large numbers of workers coming and going, all these factors and more is a recipe for disaster. And any of these factors is enough to create a disaster that could be avoided.

The location of 910 Mariposa is no place for such a project as what is being propsed.

I, as a citizen of the Burbank Rancho, urge you to vote to stop any further progress on this construction project.

Thank you,
Veronica Christenson
https://www.burbankpd.org/online-services/traffic-collisions-statistics/ Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
Sanchez, Maria
From: Jake Cohen
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:16 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Strong opposition to Mariposa 2 Condos (meeting agenda item 9) 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, Vice Mayor, and esteemed council members,
My name is Jake Cohen, and my wife and I live on Mariposa st. just one block from the proposed site of the Mariposa 2 Condos. Our house is situated right where the road narrows, and as quiet as the neighborhood is, this stretch of Mariposa is already frequently congested as it already is. We love walking our dogs down to the bridge at Valleyheart, but with the narrow street and sharp corner, we already have to be on high alert for cars. I can't even imagine how congested, loud, and downright dangerous my street will be if you approve the condo's eligibility.

Beyond my personal feelings on the matter, I don't believe that the site meets SB35 eligibility.

According to the statute, 75% of the perimeter of the project need to adjoin parcels designated as "urban use". The facility directly to the north of the proposed site, Applied Invention, has already been deemed as "industrial" by the Assessor's Office, not "urban".

Another disqualifying factor, is the impact the construction would have on sensitive species. The report that the developer commissioned was fa too short term and narrow in scope to accurately assess the impact the construction would have on the ecology or the area, a region that is a vanishingly rare area of nature in our already crowded city. I think that far more studdy (by objective organizations/individuals I might add) is required to see if the site meets the SB35 requirements.

Allowing this project to happen will not only ruin the character and uniqueness of the neighborhood, but it seems to me that it's a stretch that the site even qualifies under SB35, and at the very least the council should delay the project until further study can be done, and the legality of the developer's claims be thoroughly vetted, Thank you for you time and consideration,
Jake Cohen
Editor
Sanchez, Maria
From: Karin Costa
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:05 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 So Mariposa
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 Members, I wrote to you last week voicing my opposition against the construction of proposed condominiums at 910 So Mariposa.

I feel that I should reiterate my opposition so that it is loud and clear. I will be attending the meeting tomorrow evening. I am an Equestrian and I live in the Rancho.

If we take the Equestrians out of the equation, we still have a large problem to contend with. The street is too narrow to accommodate any more vehicles. Emergency vehicles can not get down the street easily right now. Large trucks have a problem. Above Riverside Dr there have been ongoing issues with leaking sewers. I do not believe the infrastructure is strong enough to support this build. It's horrible that Pickwick is building and this is going to just add to problems. Please approve the extension and then really get the facts together and deny this project. Thank you for reading this.

Sent from my iPhone
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Shay Cunliffe
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:57 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Very concerned about the unsuitability of proposed SB35 development at 910 S.

Mariposa Street
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 City Council -
I have been a resident in the Burbank Rancho for the past 35 years and am extremely concerned about the unsuitability of the proposed SB35 development At 910 S. Maripose.

This project is so ill suited to the location that I can hardly believe your planning commission actually went to the site in question & considered the issues practically from a point of view of safety & realistic feasibility.

This development would be extremely detrimental to the horse community - if not totally destructive.

The project site is 53 feet from the Mariposa Street Bridge. The Mariposa Street Bridge is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and provides the only access, on the north side of Griffith Park, for hikers and the hundreds of horses stabled in Burbank, Glendale, and the Los Angeles Equestrian Center to connect to the 55 miles of trails in Griffith Park.

Safe and continual access to and across this Bridge is vital to our entire Rancho neighborhood in Burbank, Glendale, and the Los Angeles Equestrian Center.

In addition, the 45 parking spots allowed for 40 apartments with 100 bedrooms, potentially housing at least 100 people would put extreme pressure on the parking situation in the neighborhood.

Furthermore, this development seems to contradict the ongoing efforts of the restoration of habitat & wildlife connectivity:

The project site is within an 11-mile Habitat Corridor along the LA River. This is an area, starting at Pollywog Park in the Rancho, that is undergoing ecosystem restoration through the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project (LARER).

Here, along the LA River, LARER seeks to restore the habitat and wildlife connectivity that was diminished by the channelization of the LA River in 1938.

AND THE SEWAGE SYSTEM RUNNING THROUGH THE RANCHO HAS BEEN AN ENDURING PROBLEM SINCE I MOVED THERE IN 1990.

There are frequently terrible sewage odors which have been reported numerous times but never resolved! How can you claim that the present sewage system can additionally handle this large development? Please pause this development while these serious issues are all resolved to the benefit of the entire community.

Please PROTECT rather than destroy an extraordinary little corner of your city which benefits the entire community.

Thank you
1 Sharon Cunliffe
Sanchez, Maria
From: Alisa Cunningham
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 7:17 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Project #24-0002257
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 Council Members,
I request that you deny PROJECT NO. 24-0002257. Having approved the initial 23 unit project, l imagine you think it's a safe bet that nothing has changed and you should approve this replacement project. However, the initial approval was flawed and this would be too. I realize the City Attorney strongly advised you to approve the first project to avoid a costly lawsuit, which happened anyway, and you will likely be advised to approve this one. Status quo won't solve anything. It's just punting the problem down the road to be handled by the new City Council coming in, which is ironic to me considering how many times! have heard this Council claim that they had to fix errors of the previous Council.

You have already received a significant amount of indisputable evidence as to why this new project is not consistent with objective standards and does not qualify under SB35. I beseech you to read through the evidence as if it were all new vs simply accepting what staff and the City Attorney tell you. 1 know that if you read it and hear it, think about it, and apply it - there is no way to approve this project.

Tomorrow night you will hear a lot of passion, not just from the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood, but also from people beyond Burbank and beyond the equestrian community. What is at stake is bigger than just our neighborhood. That little bridge is a big deal. Given its newly minted status on the National Register of Historic Places, this amps up its visibility, the importance of it and the need to ensure safe access to it. There are parties affected by this project who are just now being made aware of it blowing up to 40 units and 5 stories and the very close proximity to the river, including the upcoming river restoration project, that have significant objections which will eventually be made.

Please review this with fresh eyes and an open mind. Please do the right thing for your constituents. Send a message that Burbank follows the rules and won't bend them.

Thank you,
Alisa Cunningham
Sanchez, Maria
From: Jymie Darling
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:24 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa objection
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 resident of Burbank's Rancho neighborhood, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion at 910 S. Mariposa. This 5-story, 40-unit development with subterranean parking poses significant risks to our community's safety, identity, and environmental integrity. I urge you to reject this project, which exploits the intent of SB35 to the detriment of Riverside Rancho's unique character and culture.

Here are my key concerns:

1. Traffic Congestion
The narrow, one-lane roads surrounding Mariposa and adjacent neighborhoods cannot handle the increased traffic this project would generate. These streets are critical for both vehicles and equestrians. The added congestion would disrupt their delicate balance, creating dangerous conditions for all users.

2. Equestrian Safety Risks
Situated in the heart of Riverside Rancho's equestrian community, this location is adjacent to Studio Horse Rentals and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge-one of the only access points for riders entering Griffith Park. Horses are highly sensitive to noise and sudden activity. Construction disturbances and increased traffic could lead to accidents, as has happened in the past when horses were startled. These risks endanger riders, pedestrians, and the horses themselves.

3. Environmental Impact
This area is a vital wildlife corridor linking the Los Angeles River to Griffith Park. Large-scale development would disrupt local ecosystems, jeopardizing flora and fauna. It also undermines efforts to preserve Burbank's natural heritage and commitment to sustainability.

4. Community Identity
Riverside Rancho is a historic equestrian community that embodies Burbank's distinct character. High-density housing in this area would erode that identity, replacing a harmonious urban-equestrian lifestyle with incompatible development.

I challenge the council to prioritize long-term community safety, heritage, and environmental preservation over short- term development gains. This project is fundamentally misaligned with our values and the needs of our neighborhood.

Please act decisively to reject this proposal and seek alternative uses for this site that honor the spirit of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Jymie Darling
Burbank
Horse owner
1 Sent from my iPhone
Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 6:30 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette Subject: NO - to a behemoth condo complex at 910 So. Mariposa St.

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 Schultz and members of City Council,
To get straight to the point, if you allow a five story 40-unit condo building to be built at 910 So.

Mariposa St. that would be irrevocably damaging, dangerous to our community and ill-advised on many levels. You no doubt will be receiving many emails and hearing many comments about the myriad ways it is so.

To start, this parcel is NOT eligible for development under SB35. The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The property on the north side of 910S.

Mariposa (820 So. Mariposa) does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial.

So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

Then there are the obvious complications/concerns revolving around increased traffic, lack of street parking, strain on already taxed infrastructure, pedestrian and equine safety during and after construction, destruction of wildlife/native habitat, dangerous proximity to the historic Mariposa Street bridge into Griffith Park and so much more. Furthermore, it would do nothing to provide "affordable" housing but it would cause plenty of negative impact in our community.

Mr. Anthony, you've been to the site and I was there when you spoke to a large group of concerned residents/equestrians when the property was first purchased. I also recall that you were in favor of helping us get it back from the developers, yet here we are. At any rate, all members of council and the mayor should come and see for yourselves how completely inappropriate this parcel is for a behemoth five-story condo building. This is nothing like Pickwick where there already exists another large condo complex directly across the street. There are many other areas of Burbank where a huge condo complex would barely be noticed and might even be welcomed. Especially if it were actually somewhat affordable.

I sincerely hope that you will be supporting your constituents in the Rancho and not the developers who are just trying to make as much money as possible from this project. You claim that your hands are tied, but we all know that that is not the case. You can vote to preserve our community and we are asking that you do so.

Thank you.

Rosie Dean
From: Julie Docherty
To: City Council DL
Subject: No to Proposed Condo Development at 910 5. Mariposa Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:39:20 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.

Dear Burbank City Council Members,
My husband and I recently moved to Burbank solely because of the horse magic of the Riverside Rancho neighborhood. Nowhere else in the world does such a place exist. It has been my dream for years to have horses and live here, and in February 2024 we closed on our own home here. We now have two wonderful horses living in our backyard
When I explain to family and friends, from both the US and overseas, that I live in a beautiful city in the heart of Los Angeles county with horses they simply can't believe it. The Hollywood history intertwined with a longstanding horse culture that has direct access to trails of Griffith Park is a national treasure, not just a Burbank treasure. People are truly amazed by it.

It is clear to me that things are already changing, The construction at Pickwick and the congestion because of it does make it difficult when I take my horses out. The thought of even more construction makes me question my safety and why I am subjecting my horses to all this. But it's not just my life, but way of life for so many that is being threatened here. Burbank can celebrate this gorgeous and unique neighborhood vs destroy it and drive out the very thing that makes it so special. It's the horses and their history here! I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed condo development at 910 S. Mariposa.

SAFETY! The area surrounding Mariposa is home to many equestrians, and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge is a critical route for riders accessing Griffith Park. The proposed development will drastically increase traffic and noise. creating hazardous conditions for horses and riders. Horses are highly sensitive to loud noises and sudden movements, and construction activity combined with additional traffic will put both riders and animals at risk TRAFFIC! The narrow roads in this area are already congested, and adding 40 residential units, along with subterranean parking, will only worsen the situation. These streets are crucial for the safety of equestrians, and the added burden of traffic will compromise the ability of riders and pedestrians to safely navigate through the area ENVIRONMENT & COMMUNITY! Riverside Rancho is a cherished equestrian community, and the character of the neighborhood is intimately tied to its historical use of the land. This development would not only disrupt the equestrian lifestyle but also endanger local wildlife by infringing upon an important wildlife corridor, This project threatens to undermine the very qualities that drew many of us, including myself, to this area As a new resident who has made Burbank my home intentionally for its unique equestrian culture and the proximity to Griffith Park, I urge the City Council to reject this development. Please protect our neighborhood, the safety of its residents, and the preservation of its heritage.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Julie Docherty
Sanchez, Maria
From: Deborah Fidler
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:41 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S Mariposa Condo project
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 use the Mariposa swinging bridge to ride my horses, walk my dog and to hike in Griffith Park.

The proposed Condo project at 910 Mariposa poses significant danger and extreme safety risks for all of these activities.

The traffic will be impossible, it's basically 1 lane as it is. Very difficult to get out of people's way that are driving now.

Dangerous for equestrians and people with dogs. The increased traffic will render these activities impossible and too dangerous. We will not be able to access the Mariposa Bridge. The 2 ways for me to get there will no longer be possible on the perimeter of LAEC or on Mariposa Dr.

The infrastructure, the traffic, the inability to not access the bridge. The safety hazards are numerous and pose significant risk, injury and even death.

Please preserve our Rancho Community. These condos will destroy us.

Thank you,
Deborah Fidler
Sanchez, Maria
From: Howard Friedman
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 4:10 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Development
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'm a resident of the Rancho neighborhood I live very close to the proposed new development. I'm extremely concerned over the huge new buildings being considered on that small piece of land not only will it be a safety hazard to equestrian riders but it's way too big for the area. Mariposa Street and ValleyHeart is similar to a one-way street how do you expect cars and horses to share that narrow path? Personally, I'm not an equestrian, but I have lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years and I know what I've seen and I know this is not a good idea. I employ you to think about this really carefully the impact to our neighborhood will be devastating if this is allowed to move forward.

Please use common sense and do what you can to stop this new development before anything bad happens.

Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
Howard Friedman
Burbank
Sanchez, Maria
From: stephanie groves
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 8:36 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Steph Groves; Kramer, Bob; Hess, Justin; Padgett, Courtney; Prescott, Patrick; Ramirez, Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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 Schultz, Vice Mayor Perez, Council Members Anthony, Takahashi, and Mullins, I'm asking that you reject the new application to build a condo development on Mariposa at the entrance to the horse trails. This site is at a tight corner and narrow street that's heavily trafficked by pedestrians, children, equestrians, and tourists going on trail rides. Opposing cars cannot turn at the same time at this corner, so the addition of a large volume of incoming/outgoing traffic in the same space is inconceivable. Multiple independent public safety assessments should be done, documented and released publicly for review, prior to any vote taking place on this application. Specifically, assessments that are NOT commissioned by and for the developer.

I realize you're hearing from many, many residents about this proposal - legal reasons, emotional reasons, practical reasons for why this proposal needs to be rejected. There's no shortage of reasons. I'm respectfully asking that you please trust in your constituents, your neighbors, to know what is safe for their neighborhood. We are trying to demonstrate through respectful and reasoned civic discourse how dangerous this proposal is, trusting that we'll be heard and believed.

The Mariposa Bridge, the horse trails and the Equestrian Neighborhood are historic properties that exist only in this singular location in all of Los Angeles. They're an important aspect of our beloved Burbank that make it special and distinguish our community from the rest of Los Angeles. As our representatives, please protect the Burbank community, and protect the safety of our children and animals in the Rancho with everything you've got. Please reject the proposal.

Thank you.

Best,
Stephanie Groves
275 East Olive Ave Burbank CA 91502
P: 818.238.5795| F: 818.238.5757
| [email protected]
From: Groves, Stephanie
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:22 AM
To: City Council DL <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephanie Groves
Subject: Rancho Mariposa 2 Public Hearing
Importance: High
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 Schultz, Vice Mayor Perez, Council Members Anthony, Takahashi, and Mullins, I'm writing regarding the scheduled hearing tomorrow, 11/26/24, regarding the SB35 application for a 5 story condo development at the entrance to the equestrian trails. I'm respectfully requesting this hearing be rescheduled for a non- holiday week.

This is a holiday week in which residents are far more likely to be out of town and unable to attend the hearing to advocate on behalf of our community. This year is actually setting a record for the most Thanksgiving travel ever in the history of the country, as has been widely reported in national news.

This is the most critical matter that we have faced as a community in the 14 years I have lived in the Rancho, even more vital than the Pickwick development. To have a Public Hearing scheduled for a time when the community cannot come out in full to protect our neighborhood is unfair and could be perceived as a deliberate strategy being used by the company trying to manipulate approval for this development.

Please, please reschedule this hearing. If that's not possible, please schedule a second hearing prior to any vote being held, one that does not fall during a holiday, so all of your constituents can be seen and heard in person.

Thank you for reading this long email and taking this request and matter very seriously. If you've not yet had the opportunity to be walked through the trail entrance site, there are so very many of us who would love to host you.

Wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving week.

And belated Congratulations to Mayor Schultz on your election to the Assembly.

With gratitude,
Stephanie Groves
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Groves, Stephanie
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 5:34 PM
To: Kramer, Bob; City Council DL
Cc: Stephanie Groves; Hess, Justin; Padgett, Courtney; Prescott, Patrick; Ramirez, Fred Subject: Re: Rancho Mariposa 2 Public Hearing
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.

Thank you so much, Bob! Happy Thanksgiving to the whole team over there.

From: Kramer, Bob <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, November 25, 2024 at 3:30 PM
To: Groves, Stephanie City Council DL <[email protected]> Cc: Stephanie Groves Hess, Justin <[email protected]>, Padgett, Courtney <[email protected]>, Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]>, Ramirez, Fred <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Rancho Mariposa 2 Public Hearing
External Email
Stephanie
Thank you for your email. On behalf of the City Council I will forward it to appropriate staff.

Concerns of this nature can also be reported by Our Burbank 311 portal https://311.burbankca.gov/
Sincerely
BobK
Bob Kramer aramier
Community Assistance Coordinator
275 East Olive Ave Burbank CA 91502
P: 818.238.5795| F: 818.238.5757
| [email protected]
From: Groves, Stephanie
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:22 AM
To: City Council DL <[email protected]>
Cc: Stephanie Groves
Subject: Rancho Mariposa 2 Public Hearing
Importance: High
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 Schultz, Vice Mayor Perez, Council Members Anthony, Takahashi, and Mullins, I'm writing regarding the scheduled hearing tomorrow, 11/26/24, regarding the SB35 application for a 5 story condo development at the entrance to the equestrian trails. I'm respectfully requesting this hearing be rescheduled for a non- holiday week.

This is a holiday week in which residents are far more likely to be out of town and unable to attend the hearing to advocate on behalf of our community. This year is actually setting a record for the most Thanksgiving travel ever in the history of the country, as has been widely reported in national news.

This is the most critical matter that we have faced as a community in the 14 years I have lived in the Rancho, even more vital than the Pickwick development. To have a Public Hearing scheduled for a time when the community cannot come out in full to protect our neighborhood is unfair and could be perceived as a deliberate strategy being used by the company trying to manipulate approval for this development.

Please, please reschedule this hearing. If that's not possible, please schedule a second hearing prior to any vote being held, one that does not fall during a holiday, so all of your constituents can be seen and heard in person.

Thank you for reading this long email and taking this request and matter very seriously. If you've not yet had the opportunity to be walked through the trail entrance site, there are so very many of us who would love to host you.

Wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving week.

And belated Congratulations to Mayor Schultz on your election to the Assembly.

With gratitude,
Stephanie Groves
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: madliene haim
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 4:13 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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, Vice Mayor and City Council:

My name is Madliene Haim, I've been a Burbank resident for almost 10 years. I have 4 horses at the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. I have been riding my whole life. I ride my horses regularly past the 910 S. Mariposa site and over the Mariposa Bridge into Griffith Park for our mutual exercise.

I am AGAINST the huge Mariposa 2 condo project because it creates a huge safety concern for riders and animals with both the construction and increased traffic. I've seen many accidents due to constructions and traffic. The bridge is a major artery connecting all of the barns to the park.

I also don't think that the site is eligible based on perimeter not having urban use requirements. Please reject this project!
Thank you
Madliene Haim
Sent from my iPhone
Sanchez, Maria
From: M. Halliday
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 4:05 PM
To: Onyebuchi, Joseph; City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki Subject: BUTTERFLY GARDENS MEETING 11-26-2024
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 and Council Members,
I live within 1,000 feet of this proposed project. I am writing to express my absolute opposition to this project. You will be meeting tomorrow on this topic and 1 have some more comments:

1. SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES: I strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. The developer's biologist's report should not be relied on for these reasons:
a. Limited Survey Scope and Methodology:

The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred because of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNu(sp?) went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during a constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site. Sensitive species often require multi- seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked. b. Peer Review Limitations:

While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by the developer and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement. c. Historical Evidence of Habitat:

In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims.
d. State Mandates on Sensitive Species:

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and related state biodiversity protocols, any potential habitat for sensitive species should be treated with heightened precaution.

Although SB 35 streamlines development, it does not waive responsibility to protect endangered or sensitive species and its site requirements specifically EXCLUDE habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by various federal and state laws. An inadequate assessment of habitat and impacts of development on sensitive species could result in further legal challenges to the City. e. Community Trust and Environmental Integrity:

Granting approval based on incomplete or contested findings undermines public confidence in city processes and risks reputational harm in addition to the catastrophic impact of this development for the Burbank Rancho neighborhood and equestrian community. Before making any final irreversible decision about this project, l urge the Council to require a new, independent ecological assessment conducted over an appropriate timeframe before considering this application.

In consideration of the above, I respectfully request that the Council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

2. THE HISTORIC MARIPOSA BRIDGE: The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site.

Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally.

The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association; it literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge, and it continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed. This construction project will dramatically imperil the lives of humans and horses, during construction and afterwards.

I respectfully implore the Council to refrain from approving this construction project.

Mari Halliday
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Allison Henry
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:30 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development
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 Council Members:

As a long-time homeowner on Griffith Park Drive who loves the area for its close proximity to Griffith Park over the historic Mariposa Bridge, I am deeply concerned about your continued support of the condo development at 910 S.

Mariposa. This project raises significant ecological issues that must be addressed before any approval is considered.

Specifically, the developer's biologist's report is deeply flawed, relying on a single site visit conducted during a dry season after the developer had already disturbed the area. Sensitive species require multi-seasonal studies for proper assessment, and the limited scope of this study increases the risk of overlooking critical habitats. Additionally, the so- called peer review of this report did not include independent site visits and was commissioned by the developer, raising concerns about objectivity and potential conflicts of interest.

Equally troubling are the findings of Daniel Cooper, a Senior Conservation Biologist who has studied this area extensively.

His letters to the Council in December 2022 and July 2023 identified the project site as a potential habitat for sensitive species based on soil, vegetation, and microclimate data. Under CEQA and SB 35, it is clear that this project should not proceed without a thorough and independent ecological review, as state law explicitly excludes habitats for protected or sensitive species from development. Approving this project without addressing these critical environmental concerns not only violates legal requirements but also undermines the public's trust in the city's commitment to environmental stewardship and thoughtful development. I urge you to prioritize the preservation of our neighborhood's ecological and historic integrity by denying this proposal until these issues are fully resolved.

Sincerely,
Allison Henry
Sanchez, Maria
From: Albert Hernandez
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:33 AM
To: City Council DL
Cc: George, Sandy; Clark, Kimberley
Subject: Input on Agenda Item for tomorrow 11/26/2024
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.

Good day, esteemed Burbank Council Members,
My name is Albert Hernandez, and I have the privilege of serving as the Chief Executive Officer of Home Again Los Angeles, a dedicated homeless service agency committed to supporting households experiencing homelessness or those at risk of losing their housing. Our work focuses on assisting predominantly extremely low- to low-income families by providing resources that foster housing, employment, and financial stability.

I am reaching out to express strong support for the proposed development at 910 S Mariposa Street which is slated to be on the agenda at the 11/26/24 council meeting. The plan to construct a five-story residential structure, including 40 condominiums with six units allocated for affordable housing (serving very low- and moderate-income households), is both timely and essential. At Home Again Los Angeles, we firmly believe this project has the potential to be transformative for families in our community who are striving for stability and opportunity.

This development represents a critical step toward addressing the urgent need for affordable housing in Burbank. It aligns with our mission of empowering local families by giving them access to housing options that are integral to their journey toward self-sufficiency. By incorporating units dedicated to affordable housing, this project provides a vital hand up to families who need it most.

Moreover, the developer, Butterfly Gardens, has demonstrated a commendable commitment to our community through their ongoing support of local causes. Their partnership has helped extend resources to families in need and further advance the goals of organizations like ours. This project is yet another example of their thoughtful investment in Burbank's future.

I respectfully urge you to approve the 910 S Mariposa Street project and to recognize its potential to create lasting positive impacts for our city's most vulnerable residents. Thank you for your time and for your continued dedication to fostering a community where all families can thrive.

Happy Thanksgiving and thank YOU all for your service,
Sanchez, Maria
From: Stefanie Homann
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:42 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa project
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 City Council:

As an equestrian and passionate advocate for preserving the Rancho's unique character, I am deeply alarmed by the proposed development at 910S. Mariposa. This neighborhood thrives because of its equestrian culture and its access to Griffith Park's trails, made possible by the historic Mariposa Street Bridge. This development, just 53 feet from the bridge, threatens the safety of riders, the integrity of our community, and the rich history that defines this area.

The Mariposa Street Bridge, placed on the National Register of Historic Places in March 2024, is not just a relic of the past but a living part of our equestrian community. It is the only historic bridge designed specifically for horses and riders, connecting us to the 55 miles of trails in Griffith Park. A five-story building with a communal roof deck towering next to it would ruin its integrity of feeling and association, both key reasons it earned historic status. Horses are incredibly sensitive animals, and the noise and traffic from construction and future residents would make the bridge and adjacent trails unsafe and unrideable.

Beyond that, this project sits in an 11-mile Habitat Corridor undergoing restoration to preserve wildlife and natural ecosystems along the LA River. Introducing a dense, urban structure here directly conflicts with those conservation efforts. Moreover, SB 35 requires agreements with Native Tribes for such developments. The Kizh Nation's prior agreement only applied to a smaller 30-unit project; no agreement exists for this expanded plan, violating the law.

Approving this development would irreparably harm our trails, our safety, and our neighborhood's historic and cultural identity. I urge you to protect the Rancho by rejecting this project. Once these treasures are lost, they cannot be replaced
Sincerely,
Stefanie Homann
Sanchez, Maria
From: Stephen Horn
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 8:03 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Opposition to Mariposa 2 Condos-11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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, Vice Mayor and City Council,
My name is Stephen Horn, my wife and I have lived in the Burbank Rancho neighborhood for over 27 years. We have two horses that we ride and or walk past the 910 S. Mariposa site and over the Mariposa Bridge into Griffith Park on an almost daily basis.

I am against the overblown Mariposa 2 condo project because of the significant safety risks such a project would cause due to its close proximity to the historic Mariposa Bridge which is our only way to cross the river and enter Griffith Park.

Heavy construction equipment, cranes, bulldozers and other devices generating noise and vibrations would certainly scare even the most well trained horse. The increase in traffic to and from the site poses a threat to pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians.

The sites eligibility under SB35 is also a problem in that the property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa is an industrial site, not commercial, so it does meet the objective standard requirements for SB35.

Thank you,
Stephen Horn
Burbank
Sent from my iPad
Sanchez, Maria
From: Karyn Isaacs
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:49 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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'm writing to voice my opposition to the 5-story, nearly 65-foot high, 40-unit, multi-family condo development at 910 S. Mariposa Street.

This is the most bone-headed, poorly thought-out idea that I've ever heard of - a large construction site right next to a horse rental barn, which is right next to a swinging bridge that the rental horses, and 100's of horses boarded in the neighborhood and at LAEC, have to use to get into the park. What could possibly go wrong? Well, what if riders are waiting to cross the bridge and there's a loud noise from the construction site. The horses will spook (some of them will be on the dirt trail but others will be on slippery concrete when this happens or perhaps even already on the bridge), which makes the inexperienced rental riders react (badly), which causes mass panic by horses and riders. I don't see a happy ending for this scenario, do you?
And that's just during construction. After construction, there will be a huge increase in traffic and cars on tiny Mariposa Street, which is practically one-way as it stands now due to its width. Mix that with people and horses and you're just asking for trouble.

If this project passes and an accident occurs, you can be sure that the City of Burbank (and the individual council members who approved it?) will be on the hook for damages. No one will be able to say, "Well, it's not our fault. Who knew this would happen?" because you ALL KNEW THIS COULD HAPPEN. You've been given ample information and warning from the concerned residents of this neighborhood. This project is completely irresponsible and is ferociously unwelcome in the Rancho.

Sincerely,
Karyn Isaacs
Sanchez, Maria
From: Oona Kanner
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 1:41 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 South Mariposa
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.

To the City Council of Burbank,
I am writing to you to voice my concerns regarding the development of 910 S. Mariposa.

Myself and many others stall our horses adjacent to this property. Daily I meet people passing by with their horses, they share stories of riding across the Mariposa Bridge, many have done so for 40 plus years.

This entire neighborhood is under threat by development on this very narrow street. This ill begotten permit to build must be addressed.

City officials are elected to listen and help their constituents, please protect the community you have been trusted with.

Sincerely,
Oona Kanner
Sanchez, Maria
From: Keith
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 5:15 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: NO TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS
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.

Hi,
My name is Keith Barber. For the last four years, I have been a big part of the Rancho horse community in Burbank that borders the historic Mariposa Bridge. I travel from the Hollywood area four times a week to take lessons and ride the trails that lead up into the back of Griffith Park. The only access to those trails are by crossing over the Mariposa Bridge.

If this construction is allowed to happen, it will block that route. Any one who makes the argument that the bridge will remain accessible is grossly misleading in their presentation. Not only that, the construction, the traffic, the disruption of heavy equipment will completely destroy the horse community that has always been a huge part of Burbank. The amount of damage that this project will do, if allowed to go forward, is tragically immense.

I do not understand, with all the available land there is to build on and develop in Burbank, why permission was granted to the developers for this particular plot of land ... it was an indecent decision by the City Council. Obviously, there was no consideration for the welfare of the community that has occupied this area for generations. Outside of greed, I don't know what would motivate a board of people to destroy a way of life that had been such a rich part of Burbank since its inception.

I hope that the Council will have the intestinal fortitude and the moral civility to reverse itself on their misguided decision and reconsider allowing this neighborhood and their way of life to continue and survive.

Respectfully,
Keith Barber
Sanchez, Maria
From: Romik Keshishyan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:34 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Fw: Support for Butterfly Gardens Development at 910 S Mariposa St 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 Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing as a young professional who lives and works in the Rancho neighborhood to express my strong support for the Butterfly Gardens development at 910S Mariposa Street. As someone deeply invested in both the future of Burbank and the unique character of our neighborhood, I believe this project offers an exciting opportunity for both our community and our city as a whole.

California is facing a severe housing crisis, and Burbank is no exception. It's becoming increasingly difficult for young professionals like myself to afford homeownership in this city. The lack of affordable housing inventory is a growing challenge, and we need to improve the supply of homes in Burbank to ensure that more people have the opportunity to live here long-term.

The Butterfly Gardens project includes 40 new units, with 6 of those designated as affordable housing, creating much- needed opportunities for first-time homebuyers. This is a critical step toward addressing the city's housing shortage, offering a diverse range of housing options in a location that is ideal for many. The development's proximity to Griffith Park, as well as the distinctive equine character of the Rancho, makes it an especially attractive place to live.

Perhaps most importantly, this project will provide homeownership opportunities in an area where new homes are otherwise difficult to come by. With limited land available for development, it's rare to see projects like this one that can deliver new homes in Burbank, especially homes that are both affordable and close to the amenities that make this city so I encourage the City Council to approve this project and help create more opportunities for people like me to stay and grow in Burbank. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Roman Keshishian
Sanchez, Maria
From: Iklein6666
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 4:01 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Butterfly Gardens
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 am adding my voice to the hundreds of Rancho individuals who oppose this project. This project should never have been approved in the first place. The project does NOT fit the Rancho community. The proximity to the Mariposa bridge, used by equestrian and hikers, makes not only the construction but the ongoing traffic from this project UNSAFE for Everyone, including future condo owners. I realize that despite the community outcry, the project was approved based on SB35. At least, that was what we were expected to accept as the reason for the initial approval.

Now, with the developers requesting to expand the project, the council has the opportunity to correct their irresponsible approval. Since this project was initially approved, the Mariposa bridge has received a historical designation. Also, there are now exclusions to SB35, specifically equestrian communities, exceptions. The environmental impact, the safety and liability issues, as well as the approval needed from the local tribe for any modifications to the project, provide a common sense option to deny this project from proceeding.

I have 3 horses, and my riding family includes 2 young riders age 5 and 7 that use that bridge at least 3 to 5 times a week. If this project were to go forward and God forbid there was an accident, I would hold this and the previous council and those individuals on the council that approved this project responsible.

I urge the council to use common sense and not only deny the expansion plans but also revoke the approval for the initial project. The Rancho community does NOT want this in our neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Linda Klein
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Sanchez, Maria
From: Marcia
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:12 PM
To: City Council DI
Subject: Re: Mariposa Stables: Burbank CC Meetin
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.

Thank you
Marcia
On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 11:29 AM Marcia wrote:

I moved to the Burbank Rancho over 20 years ago because of the access & availability of horseback riding, a quiet community, great schools and convenience to my work at the studios. The building at Pickwick is going to cause enough congestion and traffic for people, it will create an unsafe environment for horseback riders.

Building by the Equestrian Bridge at Mariposa is not a good idea.

There is so much building in Burbank now..why allow this? The world is changing, some things are worth keeping.

I agree with the sentiments in the email below sent by my neighbor, Chris Devon.

Regards,
Marcia Lappin
1 Subject: Protect Riverside Rancho-Reject the Proposed Condo Development Dear Burbank City Council Members,
As an avid rider who lives in Riverside Rancho and uses the trails and Mariposa Equestrian Bridge regularly to access Griffith Park, I'm asking you to reject the proposed 40-unit condo development at 910 S. Mariposa.

This neighborhood isn't just where I live; it's where I ride, connect with my horse, and enjoy the unique blend of equestrian and urban life that makes the Rancho so special. This development threatens all of that. The traffic, noise, and construction would create real safety hazards for equestrians. Horses don't react well to loud noises or sudden movements-spooked horses can lead to serious accidents. Adding congestion near the only equestrian access point to Griffith Park would make riding feel unsafe, and frankly, diminish the character of this one-of-a-kind community.

Beyond these practical concerns, this project doesn't even meet the legal criteria for SB 35 approval. For the project to qualify, 75% of its perimeter must adjoin parcels with "urban uses." The property to the north, Applied Invention, is overwhelmingly categorized as "industrial"- not urban. According to LA County Assessor records, 77.77% of that property is industrial use, which disqualifies this development from streamlined approval. Trying to stretch the definition of "urban" to fit an industrial site is just wrong.

I moved here because of the Rancho's rare equestrian culture and its connection to Griffith Park. This development is completely out of step with what makes our neighborhood so special. Please, for the safety of our riders, the preservation of this community, and adherence to the law, reject this project.

Thank you for listening, and for standing with the Rancho community. 2 Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:03 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Street Bridge
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,
My horse Mr. Sweetie boards at LAEC. I will be 60 years old next year and I have waited my entire adult life to own a horse. I was finally able to buy my first horse 4 years ago. I learned to ride 30 years ago at TES riding school located in LAEC. Riding in the Griffith Park Hills is a dream, I'm now able to do it on my own horse. I ride with many equestrian friends some live in the Rancho and some board at the LAEC barn.

It is a very unique and special community that we all love, value and appreciate. So much about what makes the Rancho special is being part of a community that has a common love of horses. It brings people together in a unique way. The community also values the wonderful public and iconic Circle K horse rental business located on Mariposa. Circle Kis not only valuable to the Rancho community but to the entire City of Los Angeles and beyond. Many horse lovers and people that may have never seen or ridden a horse can come rent horses and go on beautiful nature rides in Griffith Park. It is a very enriching experience for kids and adults.The Mariposa Street Bridge is the only way for the hundreds of horses stabled in Burbank, Glendale and LAEC to connect to the 55 miles of trails in Griffith Park. Safe and continual access to and across this Bridge is vital to our entire Rancho neighborhood in Burbank, Glendale, and the Los Angeles Equestrian Center.

Please protect the community by keeping The Mariposa Bridge safe for all equestrians, horses and hikers. Please do not let a small number of developers destroy an entire community.

Thank you
Stephanie Larrowe
Sanchez, Maria
From: Robert Littlefield
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S. Mariposa Street
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.

Hi. 1am a 45 year resident of Burbank living in the Rancho area. 1am opposed to the 5 story structure being proposed for 910 S. Mariposa. This is a horse zoned residential area. We have one remaining stable (Circle K) at the bridge. We do not need additional traffic as people ride their horses to the equestrian bridge and an oversized building in this area.

Thank you. Robert Littlefield
Sanchez, Maria
From: Raquel Lynn
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:17 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S. Mariposa Condos
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 Glendale resident by address, but 1 am an avid equestrian and live in the Rancho neighborhood. I'd like to express concern and a hard pass on the proposed condos near our historic Mariposa bridge. The massive and unsightly condos being built in the former Pickwick location surely can house any additional needs. We do not need or want any more traffic in Burbank. It's dangerous to horses, bikers, and neighborhood residents.

This is wrong location for this peaceful neighborhood. The route into this neighborhood is one lane and it's simply not safe. While the subject is emotional, factual evidence needs to be reviewed and is the reason to shut down this development. It's too close to the bridge that many people use daily for safe haven and passage into the park. We strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species.

I'm unable to attend the meeting tomorrow but wanted to voice my concerns.

Best,
- Raquel Lynn
Sanchez, Maria
From: Paula MacLean
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 5:03 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: ATTENTION: 910 S. Mariposa
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 Members,
We chose to move into the Rancho 30 years ago to be closer to our equine friends. Growing up in Burbank this was my favorite area to visit. Please use your own minds and voices to say NO to the Butterfly condo project. Now they are asking for 40 units/ 5 stories tall.

I understand the staff agrees to this but YOU our City Council Team need to do what is right! Everything about this proposed site is Wrong and you know it! You must stand up, mature up and say NO to this unsuitable and inappropriate development!
The Historic crossing Bridge which is only 53feet away from the Condos makes this a Safety Hazard!!! *High School Cross Country Teams,Students of BUSD use this historic bridge to cross over for trail running practice. Can you imagine the dangers here! Construction chaos, residents driving in and out of parking. Many trail running groups use this area and bridge for access into Griffith Park!
*Equestrian safety! Horse etiquette while driving. Who will teach those who have no idea. We already have a problem with street racers and accidents. The strings of children renting horses! Our backyard horses in this neighborhood, how will we be safe!! Construction, noise, pollution, narrow and dead end street etc etc! Who will be liable when something happens to those using these streets and bridge? *What about the obstructions of emergency routes. The street ends and is narrow. We are having health challenges currently along with our neighbor and I worry about this. Timing is crucial! How did this pass sb35. It was incorrectly evaluated by staff and you Council Members should have given decision day more time. Please recheck the site eligibility and do whats right, DENY this ridiculous project! This site needs a more complete biologist report! Not to be assessed during high summer temperatures. An INDEPENDENT ecological assessment with an appropriate timeframe. The multiple types of species deserve this. Please deny approval of this project until these concerns are resolved! Please, I urge you to reevaluate this property site for all the reasons given.

This is the WRONG place for these condos and each of you knows this! Help us keep SAFE, PROTECT and PRESERVE the HISTORIC RANCHO! This decision is up to YOU!
Thank you,
Paula MacLean 60yr Burbank resident
Sanchez, Maria
From: TM
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 3:34 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Reject the 910 S. Mariposa Development
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 City Council Members,
As an avid equestrian and a member of the Rancho community, l am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed SB 35 development at 910 S. Mariposa Street. This project poses significant risks to the safety, character, and ecological integrity of our neighborhood. I urge you to reject this proposal and preserve the unique identity of Riverside Rancho and its surrounding areas.

This new project, which is a five-story, 65-foot-tall, 40-unit condo development with a roof deck and semi-subterranean parking, is located a mere 53 feet from the historic Mariposa Street Bridge. This bridge, listed on the National Register of Historic Places, is the only access point for hundreds of horses and riders to safely reach Griffith Park's 55 miles of trails.

Construction noise, traffic, and heightened activity so close to the bridge will jeopardize the safety of riders and horses, potentially leading to accidents. Horses are sensitive animals, and disturbances in their environment could have severe consequences for the equestrian community that relies on this vital connection.

Furthermore, this project threatens the ongoing efforts of the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project (LARER).

Situated within an 11-mile Habitat Corridor along the LA River, the proposed site is part of a critical area for restoring wildlife connectivity and ecosystems degraded by the river's channelization. Allowing this development would directly undermine these restoration efforts, compromising both wildlife and the environmental health of the area.

Legally, the project fails to meet SB 35 criteria. For such developments, 75% of the site's perimeter must adjoin parcels with "urban uses." However, the adjacent Applied Invention property is predominantly industrial, with 77.77% of its usage classified as such. Industrial uses do not qualify as "urban uses," rendering this project ineligible under SB 35.

This Council's decision will have long-lasting consequences for generations to come. By rejecting this project, you will protect not only our equestrian community but also the historical and environmental legacy of the Rancho. Please stand with the residents, riders, and nature lovers who call this neighborhood home.

Sincerely,
Terri Matera
Terri Matera
Sanchez, Maria
From: Jeanne Mattiussi
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:02 AM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: Condo Development located at 910 S. Mariposa, Burbank (formaly Circle K) 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 Council Members,
As a resident of the Rancho since 1999, and a horse owner, it has become increasingly apparent that that the city council has and are constantly disregarding any residents voices who live in the Rancho and own horses in the neighborhood.

We have for so long enjoyed the ability to ride with some safety our horses down city streets to get to Mariposa in order to get to the swinging bridge and ride into Griffith Park to enjoy the park on horseback. The swinging bridge is the only entrance for equine enthusiast to enter into the park.

You not only have turned your backs on our safety but have embraced the increasing bicycle, motorcycle and one wheeler traffic who illegally cross the swinging bridge with no regard for anyone on horseback, you now want to increase the auto traffic on a very narrow street by adding multi-family dwellings, years or noise, heavy machinery and a complete disruption for any of the neighbors living in the area or for any of us to safely ride our horses down Mariposa in order to get to the bridge and enter into the park.

The Rancho has long been a haven for those of us who have moved here in order to enjoy a lifestyle that includes being able to ride our horses. The Rancho development was created for horse enthusiasts to enjoy having their animals in their back yards or board at the increasingly harassed boarding facilities in the neighborhood.

There are numerous properties along the 5 Freeway, that I am sure developers could purchase and build condos. But you are allowing them to come in and destroy a neighborhood instead.

We do not want or need the traffic increase or the danger you are about to inflict on us. It is bad enough that at certain hours of the day, you cannot get out of your driveway on Riverside due to increased traffic that has built up over the last several years.

Please reconsider and help to preserve the Rancho and not turn it into Hollywood or Culver City.

Regards
Janine Mattiussi
Burbank Rancho Resident
Sanchez, Maria
From: Monica Muehlhause-Horn
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:20 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Costs to City of Burbank for 910 So. Mariposa
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 Council,
Mayor Schultz and City Attorney McDougal consistently place the costs of construction safety concerns such as traffic, widening of the streets and parking (just to name a few) for the 910 S. Mariposa project to be the responsibility of the City.

Aside from lack of adherence to the SB 35 qualifications, I feel the massive costs to the City for this 1.1 acre project would also be a good reason to NOT approve the latest proposed SB 35 development at 910 S. Mariposa St.

Thank you,
Monica Muehlhausehorn-Horn
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Jageck(Toni)
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:07 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala
Cc: Mullins, Zizette
Subject: Submitting for DECLINING of Mariposa Project---- 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 Everyone-
tiould once Bein likero submit my theughts on the endo Defore 9es maros....

Along with the obvious reasons of not fitting the neighborhood, it is a true safety hazard even during the building phase, but mostly in the after phase of disruption to that area. I would absolutely hate if I lived in that neighborhood and had to deal with all that additional traffic in the tight one lane road. Even now if you are driving, down that section, one car has to pull to side to let another incoming pass by. Same with equestrians. The level of danger this will cause for equestrians in this area is horrendous. This bridge area is the main thru fare for all of us going to the Mountains of Griffith Park to ride. This includes ALL....as in experienced, novice, beginner riders.....Young, older seniors, children too.....That are using this exact area to access the Park with.

I understand there have been some mis use of the SB 35 ruling on this piece of property. You ALL need to Stand up to vote for the body of Burbank that you were elected to represent. We have shown you repeated reasons for this to not go thru, and reasons we do NOT want this in this neighborhood. Isn't it more than obvious to ALL of you by now, it was not a good choice that was made.

Already the traffic is crazy due to just the construction alone on Riverside Drive with the Pickwick development. I live across from this complex, directly.....it has been crazy....half the time I have to sit, and sit, trying to either pull in or out of my Townhouse building I own. Not acceptable!!!!! I can not imagine if I were coming thru that area on horse back....INSANE amount of danger...Think about what you are potentially pushing thru for our area....We have all bought in this area, and support it due to the uniqueness it has always been. We pride this area for being unique different. We do not want nor need this development in THAT exact area.

Please use your position to decline this period. We ask this from the Council we have chosen to elect in the RANCHO's positive interest.

SOOOO many reasons for this project to be declined.

Sincerely concerned owner/resident
Burbank Rancho
Toni Osseck
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Shirley Otis-Green
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:17 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: re: Burbank Rancho (Mariposa Condo Project)
Importance: High
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Da not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and City Council Members,
I am writing in regard to the November 26, City Council Meeting, where there will be discussion regarding the proposed Mariposa condo project near the Burbank Rancho Equestrian Bridge ("Adoption of a Resolution to Confirm the Community Development Director's Determination and Approval of the Streamlined Ministerial Design Review for a 40- Unit Multifamily Residential Project at 910 South Mariposa Street, Pursuant to Burbank Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 1 (Zoning), Article 19, Division 12 (Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process) and Senate Bill 35 (CA Government Code Section 65913.4) - Community Development Department") - I have submitted the following as an e-comment (in italics below) via the website but wanted to add these thoughts to the email string, dating from 2023, as it gives additional context to my on-going concerns regarding safety. Although I continue to support increased housing (and the urgent need for more affordable options), it seems that the size and sequencing of this enlarged project is especially worrisome.

Equestrians (and pedestrians and bicyclists) all need a safe route through and around this area PRIOR to the start of construction, yet it appears that the project lacks a clear timeline to address the widening of the existing one-lane street. And if the proposed equestrian trail is only built along the project's property line, it severely limits its value. I'm also seriously concerned about what strategies may be proposed/enforced to mitigate the impact on those using the existing LAEC perimeter trail behind the proposed construction as well as customers to the Studios Rentals trail riding business (both during construction, and after the building is completed).

The proposed number of assigned and designated guest parking spaces seems totally insufficient for the estimated number of people likely to be living in the building, with the result that the surrounding streets (some without sidewalks), will become even more congested (and dangerous) as more people park there. This further narrows the access to the bridge and significantly increases safety concerns. You are no doubt aware that the neighboring high schools' track and cross-country teams regularly run through these streets and routinely use the bridge to access the Griffith Park trails.

I strongly urge you to reconsider approving the scale and scope of the proposed project and plead with you to take these safety concerns seriously. Efforts to further minimize the safety risks associated with this project are needed, as the proposed five story building seems particularly ill-suited for this site in a designated equestrian neighborhood. "As a resident of the Burbank Rancho, / am concerned about this proposal, as it appears that safe public access to the Equestrian Bridge over the LA River will be severely impacted by this development. The proposal to enlarge Mariposa to two lanes and to build an equestrian trail (but only along their site?), gives no timeline for these necessary elements to appear. Additionally, the ability of the Studio Rentals to safely operate during construction appears to be significantly impacted. Horses act unpredictably to loud equipment, increasing the risk of injury to themselves and their riders."
Thank you again for all that you do to balance these concerns within the confines of the state's commitment to increase housing density.

Shirley Otis-Green, MSW, MA, ACSW, LCSW, OSW-CE, FNAP, FAOSW Palliative Social Work
The Oxford Textbook of Palliative Social Work (Second Edition) Founder and Consultant
From: Shirley Otis-Green
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 11:16 AM
To: City Council DL < [email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: LAEAC and the Burbank Rancho
Thank you for your ongoing commitment to addressing the myriad of equestrian/biking/pedestrian safety concerns in our beautiful Rancho neighborhood and throughout the larger Los Angeles community.

Your active participation in last evening's Los Angeles Equine Advisory Committee (LAEAC) meeting is so appreciated.

Innovative collaborations are urgently needed if we are to meet these challenges. The completion of the Burbank With gratitude,
Shirley and Sam Green
Shirley Otis-Green, MSW, MA, ACSW, LCSW, OSW-CE, FNAP, FAOSW Palliative Social Work
The Oxford Textbook of Palliative Social Work (Second Edition) Founder and Consultant
2 From: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 11:26 PM
To: Shirley Otis-Green
Subject: RE: June 27 City Council Meeting and the Burbank Rancho Hi Shirley,
Thank you for the thoughtful message. Rest assured that we're continuing to work with Rancho neighbors and stakeholders like yourself to find lasting solutions for the neighborhood. As always, please do not hesitate to reach out with your questions, ideas, and input. It's much appreciated. Wishing you all the best! Nick
From: Shirley Otis-Green
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2023 11:19 AM
To: City Council DL < [email protected]>
Subject: FW: June 27 City Council Meeting and the Burbank Rancho 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, Vice-Mayor, and City Council Members,
It has been disheartening to witness the recent demolition of Circle K Stables, and the subsequent displacement of so many of our equine neighbors...As I'm sure you are each aware, there needs to be a critical mass of equestrian owners, riders, and enthusiasts to support the necessary equestrian services that each requires for long-term viability. There is a thriving synergy that is created when there are a sufficient number of interdependent businesses/owners to keep specialized equine veterinarians, tack shops, feed stores, horse rental businesses, and others locally available.

We who value the unique features of the beautiful Burbank Rancho continue to ask for your support in creating (and maintaining) safe and accessible riding trails; private stabling; public boarding; exercise areas; and training and showing facilities in our community!
Thank you for your on-going commitment to juggling the needs of our city with this historic, and fragile neighborhood jewel.

Warmly,
Shirley Otis-Green, MSW, MA, ACSW, LCSW, OSW-CE, FNAP, FAOSW Founder and Consultant
Burbank, CA
(She, Her, Hers)
From: Shirley Otis-Green
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2023 5:07 PM
To: Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: March 28th City Council Meeting and the Burbank Rancho Oh Nikki, thank YOU for your kind words! It means so much to have your intimate understanding of our concerns for safety for all who use this corridor!
With warmest thanks,
S
Shirley Otis-Green, MSW, MA, ACSW, LCSW, OSW-CE, FNAP, FAOSW From: Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 30, 20235:00 PM
To: Shirley Otis-Green
Subject: RE: March 28th City Council Meeting and the Burbank Rancho Hello Shirley,
Thank you for your kind words and for writing in earlier and sharing all the details of your concerns! I am looking forward to the traffic impact study and to seeing what we can do to maintain safety for pedestrians and horse riders in the area. I myself live adjacent to the Rancho in Magnolia Park and as a long distance runner often run in the area. I know the dangers of speeding and folks cutting through Riverside to get across the city and to the freeway faster. I'm looking forward to working with my colleagues to invest in the Rancho and make it a safe neighborhood for all.

Thank you!
BURBANK Nikki Perez | Councilmember
Burbank City Council
Burbank City Hall | 275 E. Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91502 (818) 238-5750 | [email protected]
----Original Message-----
From: Shirley Otis-Green
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2023 2:05 PM
To: City Council DL <[email protected]>
Subject: re: March 28th City Council Meeting and the Burbank Rancho 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, Vice-Mayor, and City Council Members,
4 I want to thank you for your unanimous support of the Burbank Rancho during last evening's City Council Meeting. I so appreciated your thoughtful questions and careful deliberation to mitigate possible unintended consequences that might arise in the various options.

Your attention to the many issues facing our city is deeply appreciated, and l am truly grateful for your service and support!
With Continued Gratitude,
Shirley Otis-Green
Shirley Otis-Green, MSW, MA, ACSW, LCSW, OSW-CE, FNAP, FAOSW -----Original Message-----
From: Shirley Otis-Green
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:22 PM
To: City Council DL < [email protected]>
Subject: re: March 28th City Council Meeting and the Burbank Rancho Equestrian Trail 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 City Council Members, I am writing as a long-time resident of the Burbank Rancho, an equestrian enthusiast, and one who walks our dog daily along these increasingly busy streets. Although I agree with the need for additional homes in our community, I join with my neighbors in expressing safety concerns for how best to balance growing density while protecting the residents and visitors who traverse our streets. I've participated in many community meetings and have been in dialogue with many of our City Leaders to explore options and am especially grateful for the equestrian designated signage, traffic signals, and the recent speed signaling devices installed along Riverside Drive that serve to alert drivers of the unique needs of this very special neighborhood.

I believe that the creation of the Rancho Equestrian Trail (Bridle Path proposal attached) is an important addition to our proactive attempt to minimize danger to the non-motorized users of our area. I trust that the final design will offer additional protection for ALL of the pedestrians, bicyclists and equestrians who regularly navigate our Rancho roadways.

This proposed pathway would serve to connect riders from both sides of Main Street to more safely access the Pollywog and Griffith Park trails via the Los Angeles River Equestrian Bridge, while protecting them from the increased traffic anticipated along Mariposa and Riverside Drive as additional developments are built.

While I recognize that there is significant expense associated with this plan, it would seem money well-invested to minimize the risk of injury or death to those who live and play along this beautiful traffic corridor. I thank you for your consideration of this proposal and your commitment to the safety of this endangered community.

With gratitude,
Shirley Otis-Green, MSW, MA, 'ACSW, LCSW, OSW-CE, FNAP, FAOSW 5 Sanchez, Maria
From: erica reiss
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:13 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Cancel the condos
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.
1 am an equestrian that frequently rides the trails of Griffith Park The only access we have to the trails is the swinging bridge. I've lived in this neighborhood for 18 years and it's just heartbreaking to see how our precious neighborhood is changing.

I would like to urge city Council to recognize just how dangerous it's going to be for all of us. Riding horses across the bridge with construction happening is VERY dangerous and there is no other safe way for us to access the trails. Even as an advanced equestrian, there are dozens and dozens of people that joyfully rent horses and have little to no experience trying to handle an animal that is going to potentially spook with that sort of construction and activity so close to the Please reconsider this development and help keep our neighborhood safe.

Sincerely,
Erica Reiss
Sent from my iPhone
Sanchez, Maria
From: Sheri Robinson
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 7:18 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S Mariposa
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 City Council
Just wanted to say 910 S. Mariposa is right at the gateway access for the equestrian community to Griffith Park. This has been a unique quiet neighborhood as long as I can remember.

Burbank has been proud to say they have neighborhoods where horses can be kept in residents backyards. Families have bought their homes in this area for the very same reason.

So why do you want to take their dreams away?
This area is not the place for 3 or even 5 story buildings.

Allowing this would clearly be unsafe for this unique Equestrian neighborhood.

The area is just to small.

Please stop this crazy idea.

Thank you for hearing my concerns.

Sheri Robinson, a Glendale Rancho resident for 62 years.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Heather Shepherd
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:40 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Why would you place developers first?
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.

Council Members,
1 am deeply dismayed that the City Council appears to be placating developers, possibly out of fear or, worse, for reasons of corruption, by overlooking the serious legal and historical issues surrounding the proposed 5-story, 40- unit condo development at 910 S. Mariposa. The City Attorney's blatant support of this project-despite its clear failure to meet SB 35 requirements—raises troubling questions about the integrity of the process. Moreover, the City Attorney wants the city to pay for restructuring of the streets around 910 S Mariposa. Does this violate Rancho Master Plan? Outrageous! The preservation of this unique piece of land just 53 feet from Mariposa Street Bridge, Burbank's gateway to over 50 miles of natural trails in Griffith Park, is not negotiable. The City Attorney's flagrant dismissal of the adverse effects this project would have on the environment and neighborhood culture is an affront to both the law and our community.

It's time for the City Council to stand up to developers and reject this project, which clearly violates the intent of SB 35 and threatens the historic fabric of our community. This is not about appeasing developers—it's about protecting the values and integrity of Burbank. Do the right thing, the brave thing, and the ethical thing and prevent the developers and City Attorney from scaring you into submission.

Very Concerned Constituent!
Heather
Sanchez, Maria
From: Mindy Stone
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:06 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Rancho Construction Project - Please do not let this happen 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 Council Members,
I'm writing as a resident of Burbank CA, and let me just say-l am genuinely flabbergasted by the proposed condo development at 910 S. Mariposa. 1 mean, really? A five-story condo with 40 units and subterranean parking in a neighborhood built around horses, families, and a wildlife corridor from the largest urban park in the US? The logistics of it alone are mind-boggling. Have you considered how many construction trucks will be barreling down our little streets, which, by the way, are also the route my son walks to Providence High School each day? Picture him dodging bulldozers on his way to school, all before he even gets to dodge the high school drama. It's enough to make you wonder if the developers even thought this through! Now, as if the traffic and construction aren't concerning enough, let's talk about safety. I don't know if anyone's mentioned it, but horses-those majestic creatures we have trotting through our neighborhood—are extremely sensitive to noise and sudden movement. You can guess how that's going to go when a loud truck comes rumbling by while a rider is trying to cross the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge. It's a recipe for disaster. And on top of all that, the development doesn't even meet the legal requirements for SB 35. The land next door is industrial, not urban, as defined by the law.

So, in short, this project doesn't even pass the legal sniff test! With all of this in mind, I'm still holding out hope that the council will do the right thing and stop this madness before it gets any further. Let's preserve what makes our community special!
With thanks for your support against this project,
Melinda Stone
Sanchez, Maria
From: Taj Sullivan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 9:45 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Strong Opposition to the Butterfly Gardens Condo Development 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 Members,
As a Rancho resident, 1 am writing to express my grave concern regarding the staff recommendation to approve the SB35 application for Butterfly Gardens, a five-story condo development with subterranean parking. I believe the City Council is not required to follow staff's recommendation, and l urge you to carefully reconsider this proposal.

As elected officials, you are entrusted with the responsibility to represent the best interests of our community. This includes the authority to vote according to your conscience and judgment. While staff recommendations are advisory and based on their analyses, they are not binding and may overlook important considerations. Ultimately, the decision- making power lies with you, as representatives of the people.

Your role is to balance staff input with public concerns, ethical considerations, and the broader impacts on our community. I trust that, as community leaders, you will use your discretion to make decisions that reflect the true needs and values of your constituents. Voting independently, when necessary, is not only within your power—it is central to your duty to serve and protect our community.

The Butterfly Gardens project, as proposed, is fundamentally unsuitable for this area. I urge you to carefully consider the following critical issues:

1. Sewer System Strain:

The area already faces significant sewer problems, including an unpleasant odor from the nearby pump station.

With an overstressed sewer infrastructure and additional demands from nearby developments like Pickwick Lane, this project will only exacerbate the strain. The infrastructure cannot accommodate the added burden, and city services will be stretched thin, potentially leading to further decline in the quality of life for residents.

2. Traffic and Safety Concerns:

The proposed property's ingress and egress points cannot accommodate the increased traffic flow in an already congested neighborhood. Mariposa Street, a narrow, almost one-way road, is simply unable to handle the volume of traffic that this project would generate. Additionally, the development's proximity to the Historic Mariposa Bridge-a vital access point to Griffith Park for pedestrians and equestrians-makes this development a serious safety hazard. The increased traffic will put pedestrians and equestrians at greater risk.

There has been little consideration for how construction vehicles will navigate this already tight road, which can barely handle the current traffic. Cars are often required to wait for one another to pass. The increased traffic and construction vehicles will create hazardous conditions for residents, visitors, and emergency responders alike, significantly diminishing the safety and quality of life in the neighborhood.

3. Inadequate Parking:

The parking provision for this development is grossly insufficient. This will inevitably lead to spillover parking onto Mariposa Street, which is so narrow that only one car can pass at a time. The additional strain will extend to surrounding streets—Morningside Drive, Valley Heart Drive, and Dincara Road-further congesting an already overburdened area. This increased congestion will create hazardous conditions and contribute to a further decline in the neighborhood's quality of life.

For all of these reasons, I strongly urge you to reject this development. It is a poorly conceived project that poses significant risks to public safety, community well-being, and the environment. I trust that you will make a decision that reflects the true interests of our neighborhood and the people you serve.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Tai Sullivan
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Dianna Ter-Vardanyan
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:27 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Butterfly Gardens Project
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 City Council,
As a long-time resident and attorney practicing in Burbank, I am writing to express my strong support for the Butterfly Gardens Project on Mariposa Street. California, and Burbank in particular, is facing a significant housing crisis, and it's more important than ever that we find solutions to meet the growing demand for homes. The Butterfly Gardens Project is exactly the kind of thoughtful development we need to address this challenge.

This project will bring 40 new units to our city, including six affordable ones! That is an important step toward making homeownership and renting more accessible, especially in a city where rising costs are pushing many residents out.

Additionally, it is particularly noteworthy that the Rancho community hasn't seen new housing in over 30 years. This project provides an opportunity to revitalize and reinvest in an area that is long overdue for such development, helping us meet our city's housing goals and offering much-needed homes to residents.

As someone who cares deeply about both our city's growth and its quality of life, I believe this project represents a positive step forward for Burbank. It will help alleviate our housing shortage, enhance our infrastructure, and improve our community for years to come.

I believe this development will be a valuable addition to Burbank, and I sincerely hope it comes to fruition.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Dianna Ter-Vardanyan, Esq.

Attorney, Burbank Resident
Best,
Dianna
Sanchez, Maria
From: Anne Tesoro
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:33 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR 11/26/2024 MEETING AGENDA ITEM 9-MARIPOSA 2 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,
I am in opposition to the proposed development and strongly believe that it should not be approved for the following reasons:

1. 3SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES
910Mariposa 2 biologist report was inadequate.

3. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreational. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

A. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

B. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

C. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

A visit to the site and familiarity with the surrounding area and the above information would, I believe, provide the basis to conclude that the project should not be approved. 1 Thank you for your consideration.

Anne Tesoro
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Frank Vermeulen
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:05 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S. Mariposa
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.

All you need to do is come out and look at the surroundings of this proposed condo project to see that it would be completely out of any kind of neighborhood semblance. Firstly, It does not meet SB35 standards. While this is perhaps the most important point it pales in comparison to facts that it's dangerous to the whole neighborhood. Joggers, dog walkers, elderly walkers, horse walkers, horse riders(owners and rentals). This is a very reasonable place to draw the line and stop this development in any of the sizes they have proposed.

Thank you for listening,
Franklin Vermeulen
Sanchez, Maria
From: Michele
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 10:24 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Proposed Condo Project at Mariposa Bridge
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 City Council Members,
As a longtime Burbank resident, rider and LAEC boarder, I cherish the location's unique access to the perimeter trail and beauty of Griffith Park, and I'm deeply worried about the impact of the proposed massive condo development at 910 S.

Mariposa. Riding near the Mariposa Street Bridge already requires focus and calm to ensure both horse and rider stay safe. I can't imagine navigating past the noise, chaos, and traffic that would come with the construction and eventual daily activity of 40 condo units. Horses are sensitive animals, and even minor disturbances can cause them to spook, creating real danger for riders, pedestrians, and drivers alike.

This isn't just about the temporary challenges of construction —it's about the long-term transformation of a neighborhood built for harmony between people and horses. The Mariposa Street Bridge is a lifeline to Griffith Park's trails, and crowding it with increased vehicle traffic and construction hazards threatens everyone who uses it. I love this community for its unique equestrian culture, but this project risks making the trails unsafe and unrideable. Please protect the Rancho's character and safety by rejecting this development.

Sincerely,
Michele Karma Wagoner
Sanchez, Maria
From: Alyce
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:56 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: RE: Condos issue at 910 S. Mariposa
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.

Have you looked at the width of the street in front of 910 S.

Mariposa? It is 17 feet wide. This is a mainly quiet area of houses. There isn't very much traffic. The street is often used by horseback riders to get to the Mariposa Bridge, the only entrance for horseback riders in the area. The average width of a car is around 6 feet plus 2 feet safety space for two cars going past each other so the total SAFELY used is 14 feet which leaves 3 feet. The average width of a horse being ridden from the left side of the rider's foot to the right side of the rider's foot is around 2.5 feet plus 2 feet safety space totaling

4.5 feet so there's no way a horse can be ridden when cars are passing each other on Mariposa. So if a condo w/ 40 units is built you are looking at 40 cars being added to the
traffic...make that over 60 cars being added since most of those living in a condo have more than one car.

Oh wait! The condo people have said - and even show a picture - the plan to have a bridle path in front of their property...but wait a moment, they show one rider going North and the trail is only one horse wide...so where does the horse going South go? Hmmmm. Oh, and how can the trail be anywhere else on
1 Mariposa? They don't own the land South of them or North of them. Another hmmmm.

And!!! They have apparently said they can help widen Mariposa by using part of their land they're going to give land to Burbank ....for free? Right.

So, let' s not set up a circumstance that will get horses and riders hurt or even killed by ignoring the physicalness and psyche of horses (which is what they did at the finger bridge in Atwater where a horse was killed because they ignored the physicalness and psyche of horses and they never were able to have a grand opening.

No condos, no 60+ cars driving on a 17 foot road, no more making life dangerous for horses.

Alyce
Alyce Heath -

Sanchez, Maria
From: Emily Chung
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 9:08 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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, Vice Mayor and City Council:

My horses live in the Rancho and 1 ride my horse regularly past the 910 S. Mariposa site and over the Mariposa Bridge into Griffith Park for our mutual exercise to maintain our health and wellbeing 1 am AGAINST the huge Mariposa 2 condo project because the Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

Hundreds of pedestrians, hikers and horses live in the Burbank Rancho, Glendale Rancho and Los Angeles Equestrian Center, and regularly & frequently traverse the horse trails on the north side to and from the Mariposa Bridge. This 1930's swinging bridge, just 53' away, is the ONLY way across the River for them, and was designed and built for pedestrians and equestrians. Their reliance on the historic bridge, the property of the City of Burbank, affects both the safety of the bridge itself AND the trails and streets approaching it. During the period of construction, this bridge will vibrate and swing differently while horses and people are on it, potentially causing distress and unpredictable responses from the horses. During construction, the roads and trails may periodically be closed with no functional alternative, or be clogged with alarming vehicles and building materials. This will cause unpredictable reactions in the average horse which is likely to cause injury to the rider or members of the public. After construction, the excess traffic in an area not designed for it will exponentially increase the threat of accidents. In addition, the low fence next to the LA River is an added danger with its vertical drop to the concrete bottom.

Please consider the responsibility and wellbeing of your current constituents as you consider this project. Is this really what is best for them?
Thank you,
Emily Chung
Sanchez, Maria
From: Sam ONeal
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:36 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 5 Story Condo Development at 910 S. Mariposa Burbank Rancho 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.

Councilmembers,
I doubt the level of neighborhood concern and reaction against the condo development comes as a surprise to you.

The equestrian neighborhoods of Burbank and adjacent areas have formed a strong, safety oriented community where horses and their riders can
flourish in a dense, urban environment. Non-horse owners benefit as well, and while we realize we are lucky to live in Burbank - especially this part of Burbank - sacrificing the Rancho for a paltry amount of affordable housing in a luxury condo complex of $1 million dollar plus units makes no sense and is a bandaid approach at best to increasing affordable housing in Burbank.

To allow construction also seems questionable when you read the specific items cited below:

1. SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES
910 S Mariposa 2 biologist report was inadequate.

3. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers,orchildren),schoolrunners,andequestrians, bothexperiencedandrecreational. Belowareonly some examples of safety concerns:

1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

There are alternate building sites in Burbank that would benefit all of Burbank, would allow for a much larger percentage of affordable units and still allow the developer ample (if not obscene) levels of profit.

Please protect Burbank!
Anne Davis
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Sharla Fisher
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:20 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 5 story Mariposa development
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 members,
I'm writing regarding the 5 story development on Mariposa.

What is happening in our Rancho is an atrocity. 200 more cars with the Pickwick development in the middle of our little horse town and now this.

Are any of you fighting for us? It sure doesn't seem so. There are kids that ride their ponies on that single lane road my own kids ride horses on this road, this is an accident waiting to happen. There are plenty of areas in Burbank that can handle all these vehicles on the road. I'm saddened and angry at how you've sold us out.

Fight for us.

Sharla Fisher, Rancho resident.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Cindy G
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:22 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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 City Council,
Thank you for reading my Public comment for Agenda item 9, Mariposa 2. Appreciate your time! 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreationally. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying responses from first responders during critical situations.

Cindy Gellersen
Sanchez, Maria
From: Jessica Gibson
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:56 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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, Vice Mayor and City Council:

I own my home on Riverside Drive, my horse is boarded at the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, and I ride my horse past the 910 S. Mariposa site and over the Mariposa Bridge into Griffith Park regularly each week.

I am AGAINST the huge Mariposa 2 condo project because the site at Mariposa does not meet the eligibility requirements of SB35. the adjoining properties do not meet the "at least 75% must be 'urban use'".

Also, the proposed construction at 910 S Mariposa will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers and children), runners and equestrians, both experienced and recreational, due to traffic risks and obstruction of emergency routes.

Particularly, the proximity of the Mariposa Bridge to such a large development is dangerous. Hundreds of pedestrians, hikers and horses live in the Burbank Rancho, Glendale Rancho and Los Angeles Equestrian Center, and regularly & frequently traverse the horse trails on the north side to and from the Mariposa Bridge.

This 1930's swinging bridge, just 53' away, is the ONLY way across the River for them, and was designed and built for pedestrians and equestrians. Their reliance on the historic bridge, the property of the City of Burbank, affects both the safety of the bridge itself AND the trails and streets approaching it. During the period of construction, this bridge will vibrate and swing differently while horses and people are on it, potentially causing distress and unpredictable responses from the horses. During construction, the roads and trails may periodically be closed with no functional alternative, or be clogged with alarming vehicles and building materials. This will cause unpredictable reactions in the average horse which is likely to cause injury to the rider or members of the public. After construction, the excess traffic in an area not designed for it will exponentially increase the threat of accidents. In addition, the low fence next to the LA River is an added danger with its vertical drop to the concrete bottom.

Granting approval based on incomplete or contested findings undermines public confidence in city processes and risks reputational harm in addition to the catastrophic impact of this development for the Burbank Rancho neighborhood and equestrian community. Before making any final irreversible decision about this project, I urge the Council to require a new, independent ecological assessment conducted over an appropriate timeframe before considering this application. 1 respectfully request that the council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

Sincerely,
Jessica Gibson
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Monica Horn
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 6:33 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: SB 423 - Permission to say No
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.

If you're worried about State Mandates - no need! Even the state feels that - oh wait!! - SB 35 is not a good option for Equestrian neighborhoods!!! They even gave you permission - in writing via SB 423 - to put a stop to the 910 S. Mariposa project!
The timing may be off by a pinch - but it still stands! Wishing you all a Happy Thanksgiving!
Sanchez, Maria
From: Sam Kirkeby
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:50 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: LETTER OPPOSING MARIPOSA PROJECT
Attachments: MARIPOSA PROTEST LETTER 11.19.24.docx
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 City Council:

The Mariposa project NEVER met the regulations for SB35 approval. There are so many reasons which I'm sure many of my Burbank friends and neighbors will talk about during the Nov 26 Tuesday meeting. But I will name a few here.

Some other reasons this SB-35 project does not comply:
1) GRIFFITH PARK is a HIGH FIRE RISK AREA. This development shares a property line with Griffith Park on the East side and rental stables to the South. The Mariposa project is CONTIGUOUS to GRIFFITH PARK and a horse stable. DIRECTLY NEXT TO THEM. How can I have my right foot in a high fire risk area at the same time my left foot is in a low fire risk area? It is not possible. Therefore this project should nevr have been approved based solely on that fact.

Additionally, I live at 1008 W Riverside Dr and last year our HOA tried to get insurance from about 10 different companies. Nearly all of them DENIED OUR INSURANCE based on our condos (on Riverside Drive) being in a high fire risk area.
2) The existing sewage system adjacent to the proposed project for years is old and not functioning properly for years. The area has been emitting a HORRIBLE SEWAGE smell as long as I can remember. My boyfriend and I have walked this area nearly every evening for many years and the smell is absolutely awful. The existing infrastructure in no way can accommodate a high rise of this size. 3) Mariposa is an extremely small street which in no way can accommodate heavy duty trucks while continuing to provide safe passage over the bridge into the park. The LA Planning Website guarantees the city will "maintain safe links in major public open space" " for egress and ingress into and through it's public parks. This project will deny that right by making the Historic Mariposa Bridge unsafe and overly crowded both during and after construction. While I understand the project in not in LA it is contiguous to Griffith Park which and will eradicate the promise to the public of safety. While Burbank and LA are separate cities, the shared border at the Mariposa project must be considered and the welfare of public safety take precedence over ill advised 1 development.

6.2.2. Protect and expand equestrian resources, where feasible, and maintain safe links in major public open spa the San Gabriel, Santa Monica, Santa Susanna Mountains and the Simi Hills. a. Maintain the equestrian facilities on publicly owned lands, such as Hansen Dam and the Los Ang b. Preserve, where feasible, the "Horsekeeping Supplemental Use District" ("K" District), with link c. Support the policies and objectives of the Rim of the Valley Trail Corridor Master Plan, the Urba Plan (and all amendments) as a foundation for promoting and maintaining a trail system within the (PL. P58, P59)
4) HIGH FIRE RISK. The mandate for SB-35 is that development not be in high risk fire areas. As everyone knows Griffith Park is considered a high risk fire area. It is inconceivable that the Mariposa project not be considered a high fire risk area. and this does not pass the "smell test". In other words, this is nonsense. How can it be possible that I I stand on the eastern borderline of the Mariposa property I could place my right foot in a high fire risk area while my left foot was in an area that was not high risk? It is not possible. I would ask that Burbank City Council require an independent assessment by the BURBANK FIRE DEPARTMENT as to the inherent fire risk of the Mariposa property and for that report to be made public to Burbank Rancho residents. I would be very surprised if our Burbank fire department would state in writing that the Mariposa property is NOT IN A HIGH FIRE RISK AREA. This assessment could be both for fire risk and also to assess how a huge construction project on this tiny area would affect the ability of emergency vehicles to access the neighborhood homes in a crisis.

Additionally, I live at 1008 Riverside Dr across from the Pickwick development. Last year our HOA tried to get insurance for our property and out of 10 companies approached, nearly all of them DENIED OUR INSURANCE due to our property being in a HIGH FIRE RISK AREA. How can my property on Riverside Drive currently be in a high fire risk area and the Mariposa property which shares a border with Griffith Park NOT be in a high fire risk area? It is not possible. For this reason alone, the SB-35 conditions have not been met.
5) In addition, the new state law, SB-423 should now preempt SB-35. It was clear to our state representatives that mistakes were made with SB-35 and that equestrian areas should be protected and not have our precious trails and land be taken advantage of my greedy and opportunistic developers. When new laws are made, legal requirements change. And the updated SB-423 must take precedence.

Thank you for your time and please please keep this dangerous development from endangering our Burbank citizens' safety. Vote for the citizens welfare and safety that you have sworn to protect and which must have the ultimate priority.

Sincerely,
Sam Kirkeby
PS: I am also attaching an additional letter which I sent in last week opposing the Mariposa project. 2 Sanchez, Maria
From: carla melgar
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:31 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Fwd: 2nd SB35 Application for condo development - 910 S. Mariposa, Burbank Attachments: SB35 Application for condo development - 910 S. Mariposa, Burbank CA - C. Melgar Letter.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.
- Forwarded message ------
From: carla melgar •
Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 10:28 AM
Subject: 2nd SB35 Application for condo development - 910 S. Mariposa, Burbank To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>,[email protected] <[email protected]> Good Morning,
Please see attachment for formal letter to the council members of Burbank CA regarding the Condo development application on 910 S. Mariposa Burbank, CA.

Thank you,
Carla Melgar
Carla Melgar
City Council of Burbank
275 E Olive Ave
Burbank, CA 91502
Dear Honorable Members of the Burbank City Council,
I am writing to express my deep concern about the proposed high-density development within the equestrian-zoned area of our city. While I understand the complexities involved and the constraints of legislation such as Senate Bill 35 (SB 35), I urge you to consider the unique character of Burbank, the voices of the residents who elected you, and the long- term implications of such a decision on our community.

Preserving Burbank's Equestrian Heritage
Burbank's equestrian zoning is not merely a land-use designation; it represents a vital cultural and historical legacy that defines our community. It embodies decades of shared values around open spaces, recreation, and the preservation of equestrian activities. This heritage is integral to the city's identity and contributes to the high quality of life we enjoy.

Approving a high-density project in this zone would undermine these unique attributes and set a dangerous precedent, eroding the distinctiveness that makes Burbank special.

Residents have entrusted you to safeguard the integrity of their neighborhoods and protect these irreplaceable community assets.

Widening the Accessibility Gap
The city of Burbank has a responsibility not only to its residents but also to the greater Los Angeles County region to provide opportunities for everyday citizens to experience and engage with equestrian life. This lifestyle, which offers valuable educational, recreational, and cultural benefits, is increasingly becoming a privilege accessible only to the wealthy.

Conclusion
I strongly urge the council to reject this proposed development and uphold the zoning protections that preserve Burbank's character and quality of life. Doing so will honor the legacy of our equestrian community, safeguard the environment, and protect the will of the residents who have trusted you with this responsibility.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust you will make the decision that reflects the values of Burbank and its residents.

Sincerelv
Carla Melgar
Sanchez, Maria
From: Karen Perlow
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 8:58 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS
Attachments: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS docx
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, Vice Mayor and City Council:

For the past 11 years I have operated GrandView Farms, a hunter/jumper program located at the LA Equestrian Center. I also am a horse show manager producing new competitions at LAEC in 2025. The beauty of Burbank, the safety within the community and the ability to ride our horses throughout the Rancho and across the bridge to the trails of Griffith Park is essential.

I'm extremely against the 910 S Mariposa condo development for numerous of reasons. First, the safety of our horses and riders with all the construction and noise that will disrupt the use of the rancho and all the havoc going into LAEC. The environmental stress creates bleeding ulcers in horses, risks of major injuries and or death from construction hazards. Such as a single nail can get stuck in a hoof which can result in a fatal infection. The safety of our current residents, pedestrians and riders is crucial as the construction scares horses and can seriously injure people and themselves
The rancho is historical and essential for the equestrians. Keep the rancho special and unique as it was designed to be.

Thank you for your time,
Karen Perlow
Sanchez, Maria
From: Sabrina Silver
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 6:19 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) Attachments: item 9-mariposa (2) - screengrabs from video 910 S Mariposa seen from perimeter trail - safety issues and sawn off elderberry limb.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 the Burbank City Council and Mayor,
I am submitting the following to be entered into the record for public comment on the 11-26-2004 meeting agenda ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2):

1. letter of public comment - attached and in the body of this email, and via Dropbox link. Public Comment - Item 9 - opposing approval of 910 S Mariposa.docx

2. PDF of screenshots from a 54 second video that I shot and compiled - attached and via Dropbox link. item 9-mariposa (2) - screengrabs from video 910 S Mariposa seen from perimeter trail - safety issues and sawn off elderberry limb.pdf

3. A 54 second video (from which the screengrabs were obtained) to be entered into the public record and played, if possible, during my in-person public comment: clip 1 taken. May 6, 2023 -horse reacting to pipe stalls being dismantled on the site, and clip 2 taken April 10, 2024-elderberry tree limb cut on site - via Dropbox link. - item 9-mariposa (2) - from Perimeter trail horse reacts - sawn off elderberry limb.mp4 Here is my letter for entry into the record for public comment on this item:

From: Sabrina Silver
To: [email protected]
Re: Public Comment - Burbank City Council meeting 11-26-2024 Agenda Item #9 - Mariposa (2) I urge you to oppose Item #9 - Mariposa (2), The proposed project abuts an active horse trail ('behind' the property) routed between the project and three busy horse barns at LAEC. Horses boarding in Barns D, E, and F at LAEC, and the horse rental barn directly next to the site, as well as ALL Rancho riders using the Perimeter trail en route to the ONLY access to Griffith Park's interior trails - the historic Mariposa Bridge (listed on the National Registry of Important Places) will be significantly negatively impacted: their life, health, and safety put in danger by this project. Please reject this proposal. It is

1. Safety:

Horses are thousand pound plus prey animals evolved with highly developed senses and reactions to survive ambush and tracking predators. Novel stimuli, especially when loud or chaotic, activates a flight response. It's instinctive.

Equestrians try to be situationally aware and anticipate what might be of concern to their horse. However, it will not be possible to avoid this location if one either boards in LAEC Barns D, E, and For rents from the neighboring rental barn Studio Rentals, or if one wishes to ride in the interior of Griffith Park as it will be necessary to ride next to the project site.

As you can see in the attached PDF of screengrabs from the video and in the 54-second video itself, construction activity can result in a frightened horse. That day, the activity was relatively minor. A construction project of the scale proposed, with the need to excavate underground parking and build 5 stories high will be active, chaotic, noisy, and not routinized. It is a reasonable expectation that multiple horses passing by will become frightened and react. Due to the many riders, it would be reasonable to expect injuries, perhaps serious or deadly, to horse and rider. This project poses a reasonable expectation of hazardous (potentially deadly) conditions to all nearby equestrians.

Riders very in ability from experienced to first timers, including children, out for a pleasant ride. 100% of riders east of the 5 freeway and north of the Los Angeles River will need to pass directly next to or proximate to this site en route to Griffith Park's interior (with its 55 miles of recreational trails) due to the site's proximity to the ONLY equestrian access into the park - the Mariposa Bridge, which is designated on the National Registry of Historic Places for its importance in the equestrian history of this area.

Construction at this location poses safety risks that cannot be mitigated due to the site's location; it is SURROUNDED by active equestrian trails and barns. The active equestrian use of multiple barns, trails, and streets surrounding the site puts all equestrians near it in serious danger of injury or death that cannot be mitigated. • Abutting/East: Griffith Park's Perimeter Trail which abuts three LAEC's barns/equine amenities. • Abutting/South: Studio (horse) Rentals which abuts Burbank's southern access trail to the Mariposa Bridge Abutting/West: Mariposa Street - used by (mostly) Burbank riders to access the Mariposa Bridge from multiple city streets.

2. SB35 Site Eligibility:

The site is NOT eligible, as it is NOT (as was represented by the developers) 75% surrounded by "urban use". The property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. therefore does not meet the "urban use" definition. Therefore Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

DIRECTLY abutting the proposed site is a rental barn which provides horses for people wanting to experience open space and recreational opportunities in Griffith Park. Though a rental barn may be 'commercial,' as money is exchanged for the pleasure of renting a horse to ride into the open space of Griffith Park, it does not fall within the intention or spirit of the term "urban use."
The same applies to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center (LAEC), where many horses, including mine, have boarded for years. Technically, yes, it is commercial. LEAC hosts events for which they are paid, however, the primary focus and use is on horses and equine recreational activities. LAEC is also a park. It is situated within Griffith Park and is surrounded by the Perimeter Trail, which lies between LAEC and the proposed project's site. The project does NOT directly abut LAEC.

It abuts a Griffith Park trail.

For years, I have paid for board, people to feed my horse hay, that I also paid for and is delivered to my barn; I have paid trainers, farriers, etc. My purpose is to enjoy nature and my and other horses. To rest and recreate. The purpose and focus of LAEC is RECREATIONAL. The use of LAEC does not fall within the intention or spirit of the term "urban use."

3. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES
There are unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. I believe that the elderberry tree is one such species. I witnessed disregard on this site for one of these trees and species dependent upon it when I saw a large limb (or trunk?) of an elderberry tree being cut down with a chain saw. This act demonstrates a lack of regard or concern regarding natural habitat and sensitive species. It seems unlikely that this would change.

Attachment exhibits:

I have attached a pdf of screenshots from a video I took on the Perimeter trail between the site and LAEC's Barns E and F. It has two clips: one of a horse objecting to deconstruction on the proposed site - taken May 6, 2023, and the other of the dispatch of elderberry tree limb or trunk that was chain sawed off and cut up on the site - taken April 10, 2024. Here is a link to the pdf: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1g9jsd4xxijltipirhfdo/item-9-mariposa-2-from-Perimeter-trail-horse-reacts- sawn-off-elderberry-limb.mp4?rlkey=14r0utubtxrq4bwlbik4v2pz4&st=hrax5t0b&dl=0 I have also included a link to the video from which I took the screengrabs, which I would like to have entered into the record. It is downloadable from Dropbox, as it was too large to attach directly. Link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1g9jsd4xxijltipirhfdo/item-9-mariposa-2-from-Perimeter-trail-horse-reacts-sawn-off elderberry-limb.mp4?r|key=r4r0utubtxra4bwlbik4v2pz4&st=015iuqiz&dl=0 2 DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO CLIP1 taken May 6, 2023, on Griffith Park Perimeter Trail between LAEC and 910 S.

Mariposa.

I took footage of the perimeter trail when a trio of riders attempted to ride past the site at 910 S. Mariposa on the unfamiliar sounds, smells, and other stimuli. He plants his hooves and tosses his head. He hops, rears, bucks, sidesteps, tries to spin, turns around, and he backs up. Eventually the rider decides NOT to continue forward and calls to the other riders to return. The three of them then backtracked the way they came.

DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO CLIP2 taken April 10, 2024, on Griffith Park Perimeter Trail between LAEC and 910 S.

Mariposa.

NOTE: I was riding on the Perimeter trail and heard a chain saw. I looked up and saw a person (man) on the 910 S.

Mariposa site cut a limb (trunk?) of an elderberry tree with it. I pulled out my phone and began recording. My horse objected to being asked to stop next to the unfamiliar and loud noise of the chain saw. The video shows the person using the chain saw and moving the large limb, which took a bit of effort.

I urge each of you to reconsider the recommendation you have been given. It is up to you to protect that which will be put in harm's way should the project be approved: people - the riders, horses, habitat, sensitive species and ecosystems, the historic Mariposa Bridge, placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024, all of which will be irreparably harmed should this project - that does not even meet the requirements to move forward - be approved to move forward.

Please do not read, copy or disseminate this communication unless you are the intended addressee. This e-mail communication contains confidential and/or privileged information intended only for the addressee. If you have received this communication in error, please e-mail me immediately, and destroy all copies of the communications. Thank you.

Links in the message (5)
item 9-mariposa (2) -
screengrabs from ...
item 9-mariposa (2) - from
Perimeter tr...

Public Comment - Item 9 -
opposing appr...
3 Sanchez, Maria
From: Stockwell, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 10:17 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S Mariposa -
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.

This project is way too large, is not in compliance with SB 35—the City Planner's conclusions are wrong —and should be rejected by the City Council. • SB 35 requires that 75% of the perimeter of the project site adjoin parcels that are developed with "urban uses." "Urban uses" is defined as any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility or retail use or any combination of those uses. • The property to the north of 910 S. Mariposa, Applied Invention, is not an SB 35 qualified urban use. The Applied Invention property is an industrial use. We know that because the official records of the LA County Assessor's Office specifically states that the "Use Type of the property is "Industrial." While there are portions of that property that the Assessor's Office identifies as "commercial," most of the property has been identified as "industrial." A simple math calculation to determine the square footage of each of the "subparts" on the Assessor's records results in 77.77% of the Applied Invention property identified as "industrial." This is important, because the developer's team has told you that the property of Applied Invention is both industrial and commercial, and then they conclude "that as a commercial use it qualifies" for SB

35. But it does not qualify. That is because although you can combine statutorily authorized uses, such as "retail" and "residential," or "commercial" and "residential," because retail and residential and commercial uses are each listed in the statutory definition, you cannot combine "industrial" and "commercial" because "industrial" is not listed in the definition. • The developer's team is trying to transform a property that, at 77.77% industrial, is overwhelmingly industrial, into something that it is not. That is not right.

Please reject this project as it does not comply with the SB 35 statute and will be an eyesore in the beautiful Rancho District.

Paul W. Stockwell
Details about the personal data CBRE collects and why, as well as your data privacy rights under applicable law, are available at CBRE - Privacy Policy.
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Linda Veitch
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:34 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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, Vice Mayor and City Council:

I have had a horse boarded in the Rancho for over 25 years at Circle K by the bridge and LAEC and I have ridden and walked my horse regularly past the 910 S. Mariposa site and over the Mariposa Bridge into Griffith Park for our mutual exercise to maintain our health and wellbeing.

I am AGAINST the huge Mariposa 2 condo project because it will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers and children), runners and equestrians, both experienced and recreational.

Also this development does not comply with the SB 35 statute. SB 35 requires that 75% of the perimeter of the project site adjoin parcels that are developed with "urban uses." "Urban uses" is defined as any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility or retail use or any combination of those uses.

The property to the north of 910 S. Mariposa, Applied Invention, is not an SB 35 qualified urban use. The Applied Invention property is an industrial use. We know that because the official records of the LA County Assessor's Office specifically states that the "Use Type" of the property is "Industrial." While there are portions of that property that the Assessor's Office identifies as "commercial," most of the property has been identified as "industrial." A simple math calculation to determine the square footage of each of the"sub parts" on the Assessor's records results in 77.77% of the Applied Invention property identified as "industrial."
This is important, because the developer's team has told you that the property of Applied Invention is both industrial and commercial, and then they conclude "that as a commercial use it qualifies" for SB 35. But it does not qualify. That is because although you can combine statutorily authorized uses,such as "retail" and "residential," or "commercial" and "residential," because retail and residential and commercial uses are each listed in the statutory definition, you cannot combine "industrial" and "commercial" because"industrial" is not listed in the definition.

The developer's team is trying to transform a property that, at 77.77% industrial, is overwhelmingly industrial, into something that it is not. That is not right.

Please reject this project as it does not comply with the SB 35 statute. thank you for your attention
Linda Veitch
Burbank resident and horse owner
Sanchez, Maria
From: Katy Wanner
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:05 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Opposition to Mariposa 2 Condos
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.

All -
I write as a homeowner on Dincara (directly abutting Mariposa behind the proposed condos). We are deeply concerned about the proposed condo development. First, as a horse owner who regularly rides the trail and Mariposa swinging bridge, along with my 6 year and ten year old kiddos on their ponies, nothing about the proposal is safe. The enhanced traffic, the condos too close to the trail, the construction noise, and the proposed 40 new homeowners who will likely complain regularly about the dust and manure from horses. This is a serious threat to my kids' ability to continue our family tradition of riding through the Rancho and into the hills.

Next, I do not believe the project is appropriate under the SB35 rules, as the industrial property abutting the proposed condos is most definitely NOT a commercial use but is and always has been industrial use. This is an important distinction because it means that the traffic to and from that property is of a controlled industrial type, not commercial sales. The individuals who come to the property are regular visitors who come for industrial purposes understand the unique nature of the area and abide by safety standards for our equestrians.

Finally, as a plea as a parent, do not sacrifice our children's future use of outdoor spaces to this developer. We have already lost Pickwick Bowling and numerous stables. The things that make our community unique, desirable and joyous will be fully eroded if we continue in this vein.

Katy Wanner
Sanchez, Maria
From: Zhen
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 9:32 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA
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 City Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed 5-story housing development on 910 S. Mariposa St.

Burbank.

As a former border at Circle k and current border at Rancho Burbank, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this development could have on our neighborhood. The increased density and height of the buildings are not in keeping with the character of our area. Additionally, the development could lead to increased traffic congestion on a narrow street that only one car can pass at a time, strain on local infrastructure, and putting all horses and riders life in danger. The property is only a few foot away from the historic bridge that all equestrian uses to cross to the Griffith Park.

I urge the council to reject this development proposal and keep 910 S Mariposa as a horse stable.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I hope the council will take these concerns into account when making their decision.

Sincerely,
Vanness Zhen
Sanchez, Maria
From: Dr Walter de la Brosse
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 1:30 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: buildings and more buildings
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.

Respected city council members:

As the former owner of Silver Spur Stables, and a resident now, of Atwater District across the park, my comments:

The Riverside Ranchitos area, a unique example of country living. Uncluttered streets by traffic masses, Homes with lawns and trees and front porches. Equestrian activities, that are beneficial to the community, AND, stimuli, AWAY, from the TV and computers, texting, gaming followed by todays youth. I have in the past been present, to state my position, and that of most residents, to you all, live. Work for Dept.of Ag. has me busy with Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years, BUT, I appreciate your reading this, and to those who agree, a simple clapping of hands-- ---respectfully Walter R. de la Brosse, M.S., Ph.D.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Prescott, Patrick
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 6:52 PM
To:

Cc: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette; Takahashi, Tamala; Anthony, Konstantine Subject: RE: Request that Staff Report re 910 S Mariposa Be Uploaded to SB 35 Public Website We usually wait to post the repots to the SB 35 page until the Clerk has posted to Granicus, but the newsroom email got ahead us. I'm glad it's been sorted!
Patrick
From: Nori Walla < [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 12:51 PM
To: Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]>
Cc: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>; Mullins, Zizette <[email protected]>; Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]>; Anthony, Konstantine <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Request that Staff Report re 910 S Mariposa Be Uploaded to SB 35 Public Website 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.

Good afternoon, Patrick,
I see that the Project Status Tab of the link provided in the Notices of Public Hearing now contains a paragraph advising the date of the Public Hearing, and a link to the Press Release which has the links to the Staff Report and Attachments. Thank you for that addition.

With regard to the link provided for the "Pending and/or Recently Approved Project List," thank you for providing an additional source of information. I'll be sure to check that link too in the future. But the point of my letter was that the link the public was directed to use, as stated in the Notices of Public Hearing, was the Active Projects link that took them directly to Mariposa (2). Understandably, it was the link provided in the Notices of Public Hearing that the public used in order to learn more information, and were unable to find that information at that link.

Take care,
Nori
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:24 AM Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]> wrote:

Pending and/or Recently Approved Project List
Active Projects
From: Nori Walla
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]>
Cc: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>; Mullins, Zizette <[email protected]>; Takahashi, Tamala <|[email protected]>; Anthony, Konstantine <[email protected]>
Subject: Request that Staff Report re 910 S Mariposa Be Uploaded to SB 35 Public Website 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.

Good morning, Patrick,
As you know, Notices of Public Hearing on 910 S. Mariposa were issued on November 12th, 10 business days prior to the hearing scheduled for November 26th. In checking the Public Website on November 12th, I was unable to locate any disclosures about the project's 2nd Formal Submission compliance with objective standards, a required precursor to the already scheduled Public Hearing. I expected the website to be timely updated as the Notices said that documents regarding the subject of the hearing would be found on the website. There was no posting, no compliance findings, nor Staff Report regarding the 2nd Formal Submission on the website.

The idea of notice and an opportunity to be heard is not just about posting the date and location of a Public Hearing. Implicit in any Public Hearing is the ability of the public to have timely access to all of the information relied upon by staff, the time to read and process that information, conduct any independent research, and have reasonable opportunity to present their views to the decision-maker.

I emailed staff on November 12th, and was told that the Staff Report was expected to be uploaded by the end of the week (November 15th). There was no Staff Report uploaded by the end of the day on November 15th. On Monday, November 18th, I again emailed staff seeking that the Staff Report be uploaded. I was told that it was expected to be uploaded the following day (Tuesday, November 19th).

At about 1 pm on November 19th, I received an email from staff telling me that the Staff Report had been uploaded. I checked the website, and saw a November 4th letter of completion to the Developer from Staff, a document that was not on the website earlier that day, and I saw a Biologist Peer Review letter dated November 7th, also new to the website (and the subject of prior Public Records Requests). But there was no Staff Report. I emailed staff again seeking the Staff Report be uploaded.

At 4:26 pm on November 19th, I received a Press Release from the City of Burbank regarding the Public Hearing on 910 S Mariposa set for November 26th. That Press Release contained several document links, one of which is the Staff Report that I have actively been seeking since November 12th. That Staff Report is dated November 26th, the future date of the Public Hearing.

However, that Staff Report is still not on the Public Website. Therefore, not only were the complete Public Hearing documents not disclosed to the public through the Public Website at the time the Notice of Public Hearing was issued on November 12th, they continue to be undisclosed on the Public Website.

Will you please have uploaded the Staff Report, and all other attachments/documents that will be introduced at the Public Hearing, to the SB 35 Public Website referred to in the Notice? Thank you,
Nori
3 Sanchez, Maria
From: Liz Radley
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 12:07 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette; Takahashi, Tamala Subject: May I escort you on a visit to the 910 S. Mariposa area please? 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.

Good afternoon!
I would like to invite each of you (max 2 at a time, of course) to come with me to the vicinty of 910 S.

Mariposa one more time, to refresh your memories and offer new insight to consider prior to next Tuesday's council meeting where you vote on the new condo application.

The paperwork states this is a completely new and separate application from the one previously approved.

A site visit before then with some new information will enable you to be ready for the difficult decision before you, with time for review before Tuesday.
15-30 minutes, any time in daylight! Happy to pick you in and return you to a location if that would be more convenient for you!
Thank you!
Liz Radley
Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2024 12:51 PM
To: Prescott, Patrick
Cc: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette; Takahashi, Tamala; Anthony, Konstantine Subject: Re: Request that Staff Report re 910 S Mariposa Be Uploaded to SB 35 Public Website 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.

Good afternoon, Patrick,
I see that the Project Status Tab of the link provided in the Notices of Public Hearing now contains a paragraph advising the date of the Public Hearing, and a link to the Press Release which has the links to the Staff Report and Attachments. Thank you for that addition.

With regard to the link provided for the "Pending and/or Recently Approved Project List," thank you for providing an additional source of information. I'll be sure to check that link too in the future. But the point of my letter was that the link the public was directed to use, as stated in the Notices of Public Hearing, was the Active Projects link that took them directly to Mariposa (2). Understandably, it was the link provided in the Notices of Public Hearing that the public used in order to learn more information, and were unable to find that information at that link.

Take care,
Nori
On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:24 AM Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]> wrote:

Pending and/or Recently Approved Project List
Active Projects
From: Nori Walla
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]>
Cc: Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; Perez, Nikki <[email protected]>; Mullins, Zizette <[email protected]>; Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]>; Anthony, Konstantine <[email protected]>
Subject: Request that Staff Report re 910 S Mariposa Be Uploaded to SB 35 Public Website 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.
1 Good morning, Patrick,
As you know, Notices of Public Hearing on 910 S. Mariposa were issued on November 12th, 10 business days prior to the hearing scheduled for November 26th. In checking the Public Website on November 12th, I was unable to locate any disclosures about the project's 2nd Formal Submission compliance with objective standards, a required precursor to the already scheduled Public Hearing. I expected the website to be timely updated as the Notices said that documents regarding the subject of the hearing would be found on the website. There was no posting, no compliance findings, nor Staff Report regarding the 2nd Formal Submission on the website.

The idea of notice and an opportunity to be heard is not just about posting the date and location of a Public Hearing. Implicit in any Public Hearing is the ability of the public to have timely access to all of the information relied upon by staff, the time to read and process that information, conduct any independent research, and have reasonable opportunity to present their views to the decision-maker.

I emailed staff on November 12th, and was told that the Staff Report was expected to be uploaded by the end of the week (November 15th). There was no Staff Report uploaded by the end of the day on November 15th. On Monday, November 18th, I again emailed staff seeking that the Staff Report be uploaded. I was told that it was expected to be uploaded the following day (Tuesday, November 19th).

At about 1 pm on November 19th, I received an email from staff telling me that the Staff Report had been uploaded. I checked the website, and saw a November 4th letter of completion to the Developer from Staff, a document that was not on the website earlier that day, and I saw a Biologist Peer Review letter dated November 7th, also new to the website (and the subject of prior Public Records Requests). But there was no Staff Report. I emailed staff again seeking the Staff Report be uploaded.

At 4:26 pm on November 19th, I received a Press Release from the City of Burbank regarding the Public Hearing on 910 S Mariposa set for November 26th. That Press Release contained several document links, one of which is the Staff Report that I have actively been seeking since November 12th. That Staff Report is dated November 26th, the future date of the Public Hearing.

However, that Staff Report is still not on the Public Website. Therefore, not only were the complete Public Hearing documents not disclosed to the public through the Public Website at the time the Notice of Public Hearing was issued on November 12th, they continue to be undisclosed on the Public Website.

Will you please have uploaded the Staff Report, and all other attachments/documents that will be introduced at the Public Hearing, to the SB 35 Public Website referred to in the Notice? 2 Thank you,
Nori
Sanchez, Maria
From: james franken
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2024 1:11 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Jenise Taylor; Karen Franken
Subject: URGENCY ORDINANCE-RELATES TO RANCHO DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 910 S. MARIPOSA STREET
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.

Honorable Mayor Schultz, Vice Mayor Perez, Council members Anthony, Takahashi, and Mullins;
As 39-year residents of the Burbank Rancho, we respectfully ask you to vote in favor to extend the Urgency Ordinance, which will place a hold on SB 35 projects in the Rancho until July 1, 2025 or beyond. To establish interim development standards, within the Rancho Commercial Land Use Designation, City Staff needs the extension to complete the process addressing long-term use development in the Rancho.

We thank you for your dedication and support.

Sincerely,
James H Franken
Karen A Franken
Sanchez, Maria
From: Tad Benson
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 11:25 AM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT RE: 901 S. Mariposa condo development Attachments: PUBLIC COMMENT RE: 901 S. Mariposa condo development 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.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Steve Neal
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:08 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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,
The 40 unit building planned at 910 S. Mariposa will bring countless new cars to a neighborhood that will already be dealing with an influx of cars from the new Pickwick property.

This will seriously and dangerously compromise the safety of the residents of the neighborhood:
* PARKING: This 40 unit building will only have 45 parking spots. The extra cars will be parked throughout this neighborhood, as well as on and around the blind curve near the stable and horse bridge. Add the big Amazon and UPS trucks and it&rsquo;s a recipe for disaster.
* BLIND CURVE: Mariposa is a one lane street before and in front of this property. It then curves into Valleyheart right at the equestrian bridge. This is a blind curve that is extremely dangerous as is. * SPEEDING: People already speed down Riverside and throughout the neighborhood. My children and I have had many near misses with traffic from the studios as is. This influx of new vehicles jockeying around will be even more of a safety hazard.

Thank you,
Steve Neal
Burbank Rancho Resident since 2010
Sanchez, Maria
From: Catherine Rossi
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:15 PM
To: City Council DL; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette Subject: Public Comment on 910 S. Mariposa
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.

To our Burbank City Council,
My name is Catie Rossi, and I am a Burbank Rancho resident with backyard horses and a private therapy practice in Burbank that is expanding to include equine therapy.

I want to address the claim that the your hands are tied and that you must vote to approve this project. They are not tied The council is not obligated to rubber-stamp flawed determinations. You have the authority and duty to correct past errors and uphold the law. You have the power to take the full time available (until December 3rd) to reach a decision. During that time, seek outside council to help you review and feel secure that the evidence that you have received is enough to allow you to vote in alignment with what you know is the right thing to do.

Council Member Mullins - this is about public safety, and our ability to feel safe with the public servants we trust with decisions about our lives. It's about our trust in the integrity of the process, no matter what. It's about the survival of a diverse micro-economy here in the Rancho that has existed for generations.

Council Member Perez - this is about ethical environmental consciousness, and about the LGBTQ+ focused equine therapy program I want to be able to do here in Burbank and on Griffith Park public lands with my business to help queer kids and teens to connect with animals who teach you how to exist authentically and co-regulate within a relationship, when human relationships don't always make it easy to do that. Horses are the reason I lived long enough to come out and meet my partner Kate Adams - who you also know from her public comments.

Council Member Anthony - This is about preventing traffic fatalities and trauma. It's maintaining affordable opportunities for the next generation to access experiences with horses and to allow that passion to bloom however it wants to bloom - no matter one's culture, socioeconomic status, background, or neurotype. And its about honoring the legacy that horses and this neighborhood have in the history of this town and the entertainment industry.

Council Member Takahashi - You are no stranger to codes of ethics - I know this because we share a profession. This is about doing no harm and keeping people safe. It's about saying no to the end of urban and suburban access to creatures whose healing wisdom eclipses ours and saves lives everyday. Horses saved my life long before I could access a therapist. This is about protecting green spaces and recreational access, so that Burbank humans always have access to the public resources they need in order to be well.

Don't forget what you're doing here, and why you're here. Do not allow yourselves to be intimidated by the City Attorney - or anyone else we did not elect - into abandoning your role as our elected council. Staff and the City Attorney have demonstrated that the Rancho community is an afterthought for them. 1 beg you to take their abysmal track record seriously, and to bring the utmost scrutiny to their recommendations about Rancho issues. We need you to protect us, and we will be loyal at your back if you do. If there is litigation - the city will absorb the consequences, because that is their job. It is not your job to be the judge for litigation that hasn't happened yet. It isn't your job to cosign staff's flawed analyses and avoid liability for the city. It is your job to do your job as city council.

We know that you are being told that if you are to reject the application, that you must do so based on objective SB35 criteria. Consider the following as you read further: the initial approvals meeting for site eligibility on December 13, 2022 was not a public hearing, and key facts about land use and habitats for sensitive species were either misrepresented or omitted. The law requires ongoing compliance with objective standards, including the 75% urban perimeter rule, as well as protections for sensitive species. Consideration of substantial and sufficient evidence - such as assessor records, business applications, and historical use— proves this project does not qualify under SB35. Additionally, the application process on this new application is noncompliant with the Native Tribe Approvals process, and frankly shouldn't even be in front of you.

Please review the following information to see a few examples of where you can find a foothold to deny the project:

SB35 Statute Section 301(a)3
When determining consistency, a local government shall find that a development is consistent with the objective planning standards if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the development is consistent with the objective standards. The local government may only find that a development is, if the local government finds no substantial evidence in favor of consistency and that, based on the entire record, no reasonable person could conclude development is consistent with the objective standards.

There are enough SB35 objective standard concerns identified below that no reasonable person could observe substantial evidence of consistency.

Site Eligibility
Summary of Key Issues (see Nori Walla's e-comment for more info):

1. Industrial vs. Urban Use:

SB35 requires 75% of the project perimeter to adjoin parcels with "urban uses." Applied Invention's property, which forms 38.8% of the perimeter, is classified by the Los Angeles County Assessor and historical records as "industrial," not "urban." This renders the project site ineligible under SB35 criteria. a. Misrepresentation of Use:

Staff and the developer repeatedly describe Applied Invention as a "commercial office" or "urban" use despite evidence showing it is engaged in industrial activities (e.g., manufacturing, R&D, custom projects).

Official records, business applications, and physical evidence (e.g., CNC machines, waterjet) confirm the industrial nature of the site.
b. Legislative Intent:

The definition of "urban uses" explicitly excludes "industrial use." Attempts to broaden this definition contradict both statutory language and legislative history, as subsequent laws (SB6, AB2011) address industrial uses separately.
2 Native Tribe Approval Noncompliance
SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project.

Attachment 2 of the materials contain a signed enforceable agreement sign with the Kizh Nation for the 30- unit project stated in the developer's initial application. The Kizh Nation signed that agreement with the notation at their signature which stated "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh Nation of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Nation which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our initial consultation regarding the project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement."
There is no enforceable agreement signed by the Kizh Nation for the 40-unit project.

How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already wrote down that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only." Don't these laws that require a signed enforceable agreement with the Native Tribes count? Obstruction of Natural habitat & Sensitive Species
We strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. The developer's biologist's report should not be relied on for these reasons:

1. Limited Survey Scope and Methodology:

The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred as a result of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNutt went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during this constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site.

Sensitive species often require multi-seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked.

2. Peer Review Limitations:

While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by the developer and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement.

3. Historical Evidence of Habitat:

In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims.

4. State Mandates on Sensitive Species:

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and related state biodiversity protections, any potential habitat for sensitive species should be treated with heightened precaution. Although SB 35 streamlines development, it does not waive responsibilities to protect endangered or sensitive species and its site requirements specifically EXCLUDE habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by various federal and state laws.

An inadequate assessment of habitat and impacts of development on sensitive species could result in further legal challenges to the City.

5. Community Trust and Environmental Integrity:

Granting approval based on incomplete or contested findings undermines public confidence in city processes and risks reputational harm in addition to the catastrophic impact of this development for the Burbank Rancho neighborhood and equestrian community. Before making any final irreversible decision about this project, we urge the Council to require a new, independent ecological assessment conducted over an appropriate timeframe before considering this application.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that the council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

Potential Negative Impact to Registered Historic Site
The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site.

Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. I is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally.

The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed.

Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features.

Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

Thank you for your time in reviewing my comment and the comments of our wider community. Please do everything in your power this time around - you can leave an important mark on this fight. You can leave a legacy that matches the values you campaigned on, and that we're trusting you to invoke.

See you tonight.

Warm regards,
Catherine Rossi,
Pronouns: She/Her
Burbank Resident
4 Sanchez, Maria
From: Heather Herbert
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:08 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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.

Please OPPOSE the 910 S Mariposa Condo Development.

Cities need to build but only approve responsible development, That should NOT include any that pose safety risks to a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers and children), runners and equestrians. Or threaten safe access to the only pedestrian/equestrian bridge accessible from the hundreds of equines and pedestrians living in Burbank.

There are lots of areas of burbank and are better suited for more density, The Burbank rancho and its unique character is not a spot for this oversized development.

Many other cities have protected "historical" neighborhoods. State law allows this. Why hasn't the City council helped protect this unique area of our city??
I look forward to your reply
Burbank resident & business owner
heather herbert skinner
Sanchez, Maria
From: Sara Jane Sluke
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:13 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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,
This 40 unit development will devastate this neighborhood. Too big, too tall, too many units, too many cars.

The giant complex being built at Pickwick is adding more density to this neighborhood than should have been allowed. There are plenty of other opportunities for building much needed housing elsewhere in Burbank. This neighborhood has given so much. Please protect the safety of its residents! Also, please consider the following:

1. SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB

35. 2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES: We strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. The developer's biologist's report should not be relied on for these reasons: a. Limited Survey Scope and Methodology: The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred because of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNuti went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during this constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site. Sensitive species often require multi-seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked. b. Peer Review Limitations: While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by the developer and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement. c. Historical Evidence of Habitat: In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the s developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims. d. State Mandates on Sensitive Species: Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and related state biodiversity protections, any potential habitat for sensitive species should be treated with heightened precaution. Although SB 35 streamlines development, it does not waive responsibilities to protect endangered or sensitive species and its site requirements specifically EXCLUDE habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by various federal and state laws. An inadequate assessment of habitat and impacts of development on sensitive species could result in further legal challenges to the City. e. Community Trust and Environmental Integrity: Granting approval based on incomplete or contested findings undermines public confidence in city processes and risks reputational harm in addition to the catastrophic impact of this development for the Burbank Rancho neighborhood and equestrian community. Before making any final irreversible decision about this project, we urge the Council to require a new, independent ecological assessment conducted over an appropriate timeframe before considering this application. In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

3. THE HISTORIC MARIPOSA BRIDGE: The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site. Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally. The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed. Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

4. NATIVE TRIBE APPROVAL: SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. Attachment 2 of the materials contain a signed enforceable agreement sign with the Kizh Nation for the 30-unit project stated in the developer's iniOal application. The Kizh NaOon signed that agreement with the nota on at their signature which stated "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh NaOon of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Na®on which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our inial consultation regarding the project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement." There is no enforceable agreement signed by the Kizh NaPon for the 40-unit project.

How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already wrote down that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only." Don't these laws that require a signed enforceable agreement with the Native Tribes count? 4. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreational. Below are only some examples of safety concerns: 1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers. 2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community. 3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

Thank you,
Sara Sluke
2 Burbank Rancho Resident since 2010
Sanchez, Maria
From: Gibran Stout
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:45 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9 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, Vice Mayor and City Council:

I have lived, worked and played in Los Angeles, and surrounding counties, since 1968. I've been blessed to enjoy & learn from the many local equestrian opportunities that existed and to which I credit for forming the person l am today. I now serve several non-profits committed to preserving equestrian opportunities for local urban youth. I have seen first- hand how working with horses provides critical, (& vanishing), life skills, such as:

Commitment
Problem solving
Sacrifice
Hard work
Perseverance
To name just a few.....

Alternately 1 am local Real Estate Broker since 1990. I have seen countless farms & ranches demolished & developed. | recognize the impact property values have had on these truly unique, and vital opportunities which highlight all of our rich culture & history.

We have literally hundreds of thousands of human residential spaces, and far more VACANT commercial spaces, (why not convert some of those to living spaces?), the remaining equine spaces are very few, and vanishing. That means only the very wealthy, (or those who live in outlying rural areas, receive the benefits equine spaces provide, depriving the entire urban, at-risk, youth population.

YOU have an opportunity to say no, put a stop to this development. Therefore, I beg you, for the next generation, do not make YOUR Legacy, yet another condo or office building. This is YOUR opportunity to provide something sustainable and lasting for future generations as make THAT your legacy, PLEASE! With Sincerest Gratitude,
Gibran Stout
OC Equestrian Vaulting
USEF Community Outreach Program
Sanchez, Maria
From: DENISE TAYLOR
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:47 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: CITY COUNCIL MEETING--DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 910 S. MARIPOSA STREET 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.

Honorable Mayor Schultz, Vice Mayor Perez, Council members Anthony, Takahashi, and Mullins; Thank you for supporting the extension of the Urgency Ordinance.

Based upon information provided by members of my community, who've dedicated countless hours researching zoning and eligibility, I strongly believe that the 910S. Mariposa development project does not comply with the SB 35 statute.

SB 35 requires that 75% of the perimeter of the project site adjoin parcels that are developed with "urban uses." "Urban uses" is defined as any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility or retail use or any combination of those uses.

The property to the north of 910 South Mariposa, Applied Invention, is NOT an SB 35 qualified urban use. The Applied Invention property is an industrial use. The official records of the LA County Assessor's Office specifically states that the "Use Type" of the property is "Industrial." While there are portions of that property that the Assessor's Office identifies as "commercial," most of the property has been identified as "industrial." A simple math calculation to determine the square footage of each of the "subparts" on the Assessor's records results in 77.77% of the Applied Invention property identified as "Industrial."
This is important because the developer's team has told you that the property of Applied Invention is both industrial and commercial. They then conclude that "as a commercial use it qualifies" for SB 35. But it does NOT qualify. That is because although you can combine statutorily authorized uses, such as "retail" and "residential," or "commercial" and "residential," because retail and residential and commercial uses are each listed in the statutory definition, you cannot combine "industrial" and "commercial" because "industrial" is not listed in the definition.

The developer's team is trying to transform a property that, at 77.77% industrial, is overwhelmingly industrial, into something that it is not.

Please reject this project. It does not comply with the SB 35 statute.

Thank you for this opportunity to be heard, and for your dedication.

Denise Taylor
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Justin Thunstrom
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:32 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Agenda item 9
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 members,
My name is Justin Thunstrom and 1 reside in the Burbank Rancho near where this proposed project will be developed.

I'm originally from Minnesota and the whole reason I moved to Burbank is for the quaint neighborhood feel, safety, and equestrian community. Yes, you see I have horses. I am also a newer rider and so this project deeply concerns me as it puts my safety and other residents, especially equestrian residents, at risk.

I sincerely hope you do not move forward with this project as it truly is an inappropriate use of the land, does not apply to the sb 35 qualifications due to an industrial zoned neighbor, and lacks the proper research in terms of native species, traffic studies, etc. and does not have any propositions to ensure safety.

When you look at other projects like this in the neighborhood like the pickwick, that project makes sense. It's on a 4 lane wide street and can build without serious detriment or safety concerns to residents. This 910 mariposa project is not that. It's on a single lane road. Will you use imminent domain and tear down people's garages to widen the road for cars to fit? Will a dead end wall be built to ensure the safety of neighbors and horses accessing the Mariposa bridge? How will the traffic from 80+ new residents fit down a single lane with horses? Are there even 80 houses there now? Doubling the capacity of a tiny neighborhood seems irresponsible especially considering the sewage system already has great issues. Take a walk down the street and you can smell it for yourself.

As council members, it is my hope you care about what's best for the neighborhood in terms of safety, what residents want, and maintaining the equestrian neighborhoods legacy. Approving this project would negatively impact all of those things and especially the only access point for everyone into Griffith park via the historic mariposa bridge.

Thank you,
Justin
Sanchez, Maria
From: Sam Kirkeby
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:56 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Addendum to my previous letter with LAFD map of "Very High Fire Zones" - or VHFHSZ area (SB-38) - Sam Kirkeby - Opposing Mariposa
Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-11-26 at 2.36.18 PM.png
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 City Council ~
Please submit these maps into the record today of LA Fire Dept "Very High Fire Hazard Severity" areas from the LAFD website. One of these very high risk areas highlighted in red on the map is the LAEC which shares a common property line with the proposed Mariposa project. There is no way a reasonable person could conclude that a high risk fire area suddenly changes its risk level in a single human step from one property onto the other.

The Mariposa project does not meet SB-35 criteria as it is a contiguous lot to a VHFHSZ (AB-38) Thank you,
Sam Kirkeby
< > • lafd.org
CNTraveller.co...st Traveller) Andalucia Cou...s Equestrian Prepare to be Moved! Vintage Corin...ir Two | eBay Luxury h Fire Zone Map | Los Angeles Fire Department https://34c031f8-c9fd-4018-E

LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPAR

HAN COT TRED

HAPPENING NOW FIRE STATIONS WILDFIRE SAFETY IRE PREVENTION

FIRE ZONE MAP
airview•St -w'clark-Ave- olíve• s:Victory-Blvd:
nolia:Bivd -N-Catalina St-
+ -Allen Ave
ITTr -w-Oak-St- -S-Mariposa•St- •W-Elm-Ave!
St- S-Mariposa-Str
Warner estrsal
Brothers Rar Center
N: Hollysvood: Way Disney Studios
Burbank
Forman Studios 4134/
Ave st Lawn-Dr.

Matint Sina
Warner Memorial Park
Brothers
Studios
2 Toluca-Lake
anya
NOTS
V & lafd.org
st Traveller) Andalucia Cou...s Equestrian Prepare to be Moved! Vintage Corin...ir Two | eBay Luxury hotel r..ofitel Legend How Fire Zone Map | Los Angeles Fire Department https://34c031fE -Branford St
+
La Tuna
A Canyon Park
- Roscoe-Blvd
Verdug
ndo Mounta
ey
Van Nu
Sherman Way lywood
urbank Ain ort
-Vanowen St
Burbank
Oxnard St
=Burbank-Blvd-
W-Olive Ave -W: Glenoak.

Magnolia Blvd
101 Riverside Dr
-Venti /101
Mount beefithiPark
Stone Canyo
Sauta Monica Mountains
Hesert
Waters Los:Feli
Hollywood: Blvd=
L West_
Hollarad County of Los Angeles, Ca
PROPERTY SALES IN THE VHFHS:
3 SHARE THIS: 7 X
Assembly Bill No.

CHAPTER 391
An act to add Sections 1102.6f and 1102.19 to the Civil Code, to add and repeal Article Title 2 of the Government Code, and to add Section 4123.7 to th [ Approved by Governor October 02, 2019. Filed with

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
AB 38, Wood. Fire safety: low-cost retrofits: regional capacity review: wildfire mitigation. . (1) Existing law requires the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to designate specified owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoinin covered lands, or land that is covered with flammable material to take specified measures to This bill would require the Natural Resources Agency, by July 1, 2021, and in consultation wit the regional capacity of each county that contains a very high fire hazard severity zone to in require the Natural Resources Agency to make the review publicly available on its internet property located in a high or very high fire hazard severity zone to provide specifled doct wildfire protection measures described above or a local vegetation management ordinance, c obtain documentation of compliance, as provided.
(2) Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal, by January 31, 2020, to develop a list of lo reduction to protect structures from fires spreading from adjacent structures or vegetation ar This bill, on or after January 1, 2021, would require the seller of any real property locatec 4 Sanchez, Maria
From: Mark Atherlay
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:56 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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.

My wife and I absolutely fell in love with the Rancho neighborhood since before we even envisioned or considered ourselves living here (as we were so fortunate to get to do a couple years ago). In fact, we used to drive over the hill from our loud & bustling Hollywood neighborhood just to walk our dog and revel in the quiet, sun-dappled, tree-lined streets of Mariposa, Morningside and Valleyheart. On each block, we were sure to hear the clip-clop of gorgeous horses and wave a friendly 'Hello!' to their equestrian owners and quickly understood how prideful they were in their way of life, living amongst like-minded equestrian friends & neighbors. And rightly so. It's a unique, one-of-a-kind, special residential area of single-family homes that deserves to be maintained and respected. Just as the Mariposa Equestrian Street bridge was recently celebrated with its designation on the list of National Register of Historic Places. What kind of a slap-in-the-face would it be by completely disregarding that respectable designation by mowing-down an entire acre just 53 yards away to erect a 5-story, 40-unit condo development with 45 semi-subterranean parking spaces?! There are times you need to look at a development as a WHOLE and NOT just base it on the technicalities of what eligibilities & laws have been followed or requirements met, but really consider the overall physical location, why the neighborhood resists it so much and HOW MUCH will be affected during its creation as well as the effect of hundreds of new people poured into the neighborhood itself in terms of traffic risks, horse & rider injuries, habitat stressors and infrastructure strain. There is a reason I can't think of a yard that doesn't have a CANCEL THE CONDOS posting for all to see.

Also, the math is really quite simple. Figure, at the very least, 2 cars per each condo unit of the 40 intended. Well, that's 80 cars. And the proposed garage is for 45 spaces? Well, that leaves an additional 35 cars to fill-up the local residential streets. And besides parking issues, consider the sheer amount of exhaust and vehicles 'short-cutting' their way around Valleyheart & Morningside. (The stoplights on Riverside & Mariposa are already causing major backups all the way up to Disney.)
But from what I've witnessed from this builder and his ever-changing proposals for the space is that they have very little regard or willingness to respect this particular neighborhood, its sensitivities &/or its historical equestrian nature. As I'm sure you're well aware: First, they proposed a series of office spaces, then it became a 3-story, 23-unit condo project; and now, it's evolved into a 5-story,40-unit condo development to tower over the last horse stable in the neighborhood (as well as lording over single-family homes that never envisioned such a structure in their future.) The fact that this condo development proposal has attempted to sneak-in via the SB35 statute in an area that is simply NOT equipped to handle the sheer numbers being proposed, should quite simply, be REJECTED by the Council and reconsidered elsewhere in the City.

Thank you.

Mark Atherlay
Sanchez, Maria
From: Yolanda Aumont
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:00 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Development at 910 S. Mariposa
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 am writing regarding this development and I join the many citizens of Burbank who are against this development.

I implore you to vote against this travesty. It was wrong with 3 stories and it's wrong with 5 stories.

THE HISTORIC MARIPOSA BRIDGE:

The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site.

Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally.

The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred because of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNutt went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during this constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site. Sensitive species often require multi-seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked.

While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by the developer and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement.

Historical Evidence of Habitat:

In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims.

2. 1. State Mandates on Sensitive Species:

EXCLUDE habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by various federal and state laws. An inadequate assessment of habitat and impacts of development on sensitive species could result in further legal challenges to the

2. Community Trust and Environmental Integrity:

Granting approval based on incomplete or contested findings undermines public confidence in city processes and risks reputational harm in addition to the catastrophic impact of this development for the Burbank Rancho neighborhood and equestrian community. Before making any final irreversible decision about this project, we urge the Council to require a new, independent ecological assessment conducted over an appropriate timeframe before considering this application.

3. Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features.

Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

Thank you
Yolanda Aumont
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Kathy Ewing
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:03 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 South Mariposa Project
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.

Thank you for reviewing these issues with respect to the above project.

Environmental Impact: Because an Environmental Impact Report was not required for this project, there is still an obligation for the developer to fully acknowledge and resolve the numerous unaddressed health and safety issues posed by choosing this particular location for the project. Considering the anticipated life of this project (at least 55 years), it is vital that the many concerns of the equestrian neighbors be addressed and mitigated prior to the start of any construction.

Fire Concerns: Does the underground parking include multiple electric vehicle (EV) charging stations? I would expect there's a normal underground sprinkler fire suppression system. However, for the safety of residents above the parking area or near the development, was any consideration given to EV battery fire, possible thermal runaway, and noxious fumes? Or will EV's be prohibited from parking below residential living spaces? Parking/Equestrian Safety: As all of the units have at least two bedrooms, and some with three, there will likely be a shortage of underground parking spaces. What accommodations are being made for parking on Mariposa and the side streets? What safety precautions are being planned for the inevitable increased traffic and equestrian interactions? The proposed project is likely to cause significant environmental impacts. In the absence of an EIR, it is my hope that the many problems and impacts identified by neighbors can be explored and mitigated to avoid costly consequences.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Linda Lore
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:09 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Steve Starleaf
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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.

SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the statute's plain language sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreational. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails.

Using the California average of 2 cars per household, this project adds 96 cars to this geographically small neighborhood.
• It is a stunning concept that 1 acre with 48 households and approximately 100 additional cars on Mariposa's one-lane street can be safe for this neighborhood.
• This is a community of pedestrians, (along with many children) horses, dogs, cats, and other animals that walk in the streets.
• Our street, Valley Heart Drive, has NO sidewalks.

Furthermore, Heavy Machinery, Trucks, and Debris increase the clear and present dangers exponentially during construction.

Obstruction of Emergency Routes: Access to first responders in this area is already tight, and the one-lane area is on Mariposa Street. Construction activities on a single-lane road will further obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

We respectfully ask the council to reject the proposal from The Butterfly Gardens.

Linda LoRe and Steve Starleaf
Sanchez, Maria
From: Adam Torgerson
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:42 PM
To: Mullins, Zizette; [email protected]; Anthony, Konstantine; Perez, Nikki; Schultz, Nick; City Council DL
Subject: 910 S. Mariposa Condo Development
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,
My name is Adam Torgerson. I am writing as a Burbank citizen and resident of the Rancho neighborhood. I am extremely concerned for the safety of our children and surrounding neighbors if a project like this gets approved. As I'm sure you are aware, the site is located off of a 1 lane road on a blind corner. Residents use a pedestrian/horse crossing bridge only steps away and approval of this project would cut off direct access to Griffith Park. This is detrimental to the safety and lifestyle we hold dearly in our community. I run and take my son to ride bikes past this site all the time and I would not feel safe taking him to this area any longer. It is my hope that Burbank City Council will hold what is in the best interest for its current residents in the highest regard when hearing out our grievances with this development. For once show the people we have the power to live in the community we want to see and deny the business interest that will only hurt the neighbor as it exists today.

Thank you,
Adam
Sanchez, Maria
From: Lois Westphal
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:42 PM
To: City Council DL; [email protected]; [email protected]; Mullins, Zizette; [email protected]; Anthony, Konstantine
Cc: Kramer, Bob
Subject: 910 S Mariposa
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 Council Members,
The best part of living in Burbank is its small town feel. I know everyone that lives on my block and many from the surrounding areas. The Mariposa project threatens our beautiful town.

Safety at the historic horse bridge is paramount. An over built condo project is a major risk to equines and humans alike. Not only is this project over built for this space (where is another 5 story building in the surrounding area?) but the developer is asking for a variance to go above and beyond height and set back restrictions. This will dwarf the rental barn next door and the rental owner has already stated that he will leave the site. There will no longer be any public stable in the City of Burbank.

I urge you to decline the plans as submitted. You are not bound to follow the City Attorney or staff suggestions. Especially considering that their advice is based on faulty information. Just say No.

Thank you for thinking for yourself and coming to your own decision.

Sincerely,
Lois Westphal
Sanchez, Maria
From: Ellen Collins
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:07 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: Please do not allow development on Mariposa...

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 distinguished councils member and other officials:

Please do not allow the condominium project at 910 Mariposa in Burbank... The scale of the project is too big for the surrounding neighborhood and where humans and horses live together in harmony.

The site of the proposed build is just yards away from the stables where our best friends, the horses, live. They will have to endure the noise and pollution that construction always brings. So will us humans.

The bridge which provides access to the park will prolly have to be closed barring rider and hikers access to beautiful Griffith Park. And the traffic on that stretch of Riverside will increase--there are stretches that are only single lane. It will just be a big mess.

Several persons have offered to buy back the land where the stables formerly stood. If you do not allow the construction perhaps the developers will just take the money and cut their losses.

Kindest of regards,
Ellen Collins
P.S. Horse riding brought me back from a horrible depression after my son overdosed on Fentanyl three years ago. These gorgeous animals really are my best friends...
1 Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:19 PM
Subject: Mariposa 2
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 and Council Members,
Once again the project at 910 S. Mariposa is on your agenda, now referred to as Mariposa 2.

The new application for Mariposa 2 has been increased in size and is more dangerous than the original application.

The Mariposa 2 project does not fit the statutory definition of urban use. The objective standard does not meet the requirements of SB 35.

This project is a safety threat to present residents, equestrians, delivery drivers, first responders, bikers, walkers and runners.

Living one half block away I see drivers nearly every day who think zipping down Morningside is an alternate route to the already drive home heavy traffic! Too many cars in an already narrowed down Riverside makes it a conscious act of patience for a driver
(sometimes waiting through 2 traffic signal cycles) to make a left turn onto Beachwood Drive to Morningside and Valley Heart.

The sewage stench has been increasing every year for the past ten years. Well aware of this matter, we have been complaining
to the City especially in the summer but to no resolution. This stench will only increase with the additional units in this old sewer infrastructure.

Mariposa 2 is not a good fit for our Rancho Equestrian community.

We urge you to deny the application for this monster project, Mariposa 2, in this beautiful single family residential area.

Sincerely,
Mary Whittle
Stephanie Whittle
2 Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:16 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: 910 S. Mariposa St., Public Hearing 11.26.24, Agenda Item 09 Attachments: FINAL_Comments to City Council. 11.26.24.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.

Mayor and Council Members,
Attached please find my comments for tonight's public hearing.

Respectfully,
Emily
Sanchez, Maria
From: Karen Pav
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:13 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: NO to 910 S. Mariposa
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 Schultz,
Congratulations on your move to State Congress! I heard your support for the Rancho community at the last city council meeting, and I know you are committed to protecting the culture, community, and environment of Burbank's gateway to Griffith Park. The proposed expanded development at 910 S.

Mariposa is a threat to everything we know is best for the Rancho. Let your Burbank legacy be fighting the developers who are exploiting SB135 at the expense of our environment and community.

The Pickwick condo taught us an important lesson: massive luxury condo complexes destroy public businesses and resources and fail to increase housing for low-income residents. Visit the development at Pickwick and see:
• Riverside drive is
• ripped up for water and power
•
• Huge equipment is
• parked along Riverside and in the median of the street, causing traffic snarls, preventing pedestrian right-of-way and generating incredible noise and dust Construction scares
horses walking from the equestrian neighborhood and along the bridle trail The few "low income
units" are priced at $800,000 and do nothing to end California's housing shortage • The development is
• not in keeping with the neighborhood nor the precious and rare Rancho culture 1 BURBANK CITY COUNCIL CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.

I believe that you will fight for our community and the culture of the Rancho and Burbank, to ensure:
• Safety for equestrians
• in the adjacent Los Angeles Equestrian Center
• Safety for pedestrians
•and riders who use the abutting trail and historic bridge to Griffith Park Continued safe, public
horse rentals at the adjacent public riding stables
• Protection for the
wildlife corridor across the LA River using the historic bridge • Support for the community
• who use the single lane street, enjoy the unobscured views of the park, and value the culture of this rare gem of a unique neighborhood.

The chance of litigation from the developers is real, but you must weigh this short term challenge against the long-term threat to the culture, wildlife, community, and safety of residents. The community will support you! DO NOT LET DEVELOPERS EXPLOIT LEGAL LOOPHOLES in this sensitive and important area that benefits the greater community and allows public access to Griffith Park.

See you on Tuesday.

With respect, hope, and support,
Karen Pavliscak
Sanchez, Maria
From: Kimberley Smith
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:29 PM
To: Perez, Nikki
Subject: Public Comment: No to Condo Expansion
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 Vice Mayor Perez,
I am writing as a Burbank, Rancho resident to vote NO to the expansion of the 910 S. Mariposa development, slated to be 5 stories and 40 units with subterranean parking. This massive project poses serious risks to our community and Rancho culture, and I beg you to fight against developers who are exploiting the spirit of SB35 at the expense of our community and culture. The proposed expansion creates

1. 2.

3. Traffic

4. Congestion:

5. The narrow, one-lane roads around Mariposa and adjacent neighborhoods cannot sustain the significant increase in traffic this development would generate. These streets are vital corridors for both vehicular and equestrian use, and the added congestion would

6. disrupt the area's unique dynamics.

7. 8.

9. 10. Equestrian

11. Safety Threats:

12. This location is in the heart of Riverside Rancho's equestrian community, adjacent to Studio Horse Rentals and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridgeone of the only access points for riders entering Griffith Park. Horses, as prey animals, are sensitive to noise and

13. activity. Construction noise and increased traffic could cause severe accidents, as seen in past incidents involving startled horses. This endangers riders, pedestrians, and the animals themselves.

14. 15.

16. 17. Impact

18. on the Wildlife Corridor and Access to Griffith Park:

19. The area serves as an essential wildlife corridor connecting the Los Angeles River and Griffith Park Large-scale development here would disrupt local ecosystems, jeopardizing both flora and fauna.

Furthermore, the environmental strain of such a project contradicts

20. efforts to preserve Burbank's natural heritage.

21. 22.

23. 1

24. Community

25. Identity:

26. Riverside Rancho is a historic equestrian community that contributes to Burbank's distinct identity.

Placing high-density housing in this neighborhood undermines its character, which is built on harmonious coexistence between urban and equestrian lifestyles.

27. I challenge the council to prioritize the preservation of our community's safety, heritage, and environment over short-term development gains. I urge you to act decisively to reject this project and consider more appropriate uses for the site.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Kim Smith
Sanchez, Maria
From: Katie Andrews
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 12:08 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: CANCEL the CONDOS
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 City Council Members,
As a homeowner in Riverside Rancho and a parent of a daughter who cherishes horses and benefits deeply from this community, I implore you to reject the proposed condo development at 910 S. Mariposa. This decision is not just about one project-it's about preserving the character, safety, and integrity of a neighborhood cherished by residents and generations to come.

Legally, the project fails to meet the requirements for SB 35 approval. For a development to qualify, 75% of the perimeter must adjoin parcels with "urban uses." However, the property to the north-Applied Invention-is classified predominantly as industrial, with 77.77% of its use deemed industrial by the LA County Assessor. Industrial uses do not qualify as "urban uses," making this project ineligible under the law.

The project threatens the safety of equestrians and pedestrians alike. Increased traffic of large construction equipment on the single lane street will create hazardous conditions for children, joggers, walkers, and riders, especially near the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge, a critical link to Griffith Park. Furthermore, this development would bring substantial disruption to a neighborhood carefully designed to support its equestrian identity.

By approving this development, the Council risks permanently damaging the unique fabric of the Rancho, a place that attracts families like mine for its rare blend of urban and equestrian life. Your vote will set a precedent with lasting implications. Please protect this community and reject the 910 S. Mariposa project.

Thank you,
Katie Andrews
Sanchez, Maria
From: Cammy Ellis
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 11:32 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Rancho development
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 Esteemed Burbank City Council Members,
My name is Cammeron Ellis -Darling.

As a resident of Burbank's Rancho neighborhood, l am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion at 910 S. Mariposa. This 5-story, 40-unit development with subterranean parking poses significant risks to our community's safety, identity, and environmental integrity. I urge you to reject this project, which exploits the intent of SB35 to the detriment of Riverside Rancho's unique character and culture.

Here are my key concerns:

1. Traffic Congestion
The narrow, one-lane roads surrounding Mariposa and adjacent neighborhoods cannot handle the increased traffic this project would generate. These streets are critical for both vehicles and equestrians. The added congestion would disrupt their delicate balance, creating dangerous conditions for all users.

2. Equestrian Safety Risks
Situated in the heart of Riverside Rancho's equestrian community, this location is adjacent to Studio Horse Rentals and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge-one of the only access points for riders entering Griffith Park. Horses are highly sensitive to noise and sudden activity. Construction disturbances and increased traffic could lead to accidents, as has happened in the past when horses were startled. These risks endanger riders, pedestrians, and the horses themselves.

3. Environmental Impact
This area is a vital wildlife corridor linking the Los Angeles River to Griffith Park. Large-scale development would disrupt local ecosystems, jeopardizing flora and fauna. It also undermines efforts to preserve Burbank's natural heritage and commitment to sustainability.

4. Community Identity
Riverside Rancho is a historic equestrian community that embodies Burbank's distinct character. High-density housing in this area would erode that identity, replacing a harmonious urban-equestrian lifestyle with incompatible development.

I challenge the council to prioritize long-term community safety, heritage, and environmental preservation over short- term development gains. This project is fundamentally misaligned with our values and the needs of our neighborhood.

Please act decisively to reject this proposal and seek alternative uses for this site that honor the spirit of our community.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,
Cammeron Ellis -Darling
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Victoria English
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:13 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSE 910 S Mariposa
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,
Please do not allow 910 S Mariposa to proceed.

I live 1 block from this project.

I grew up on the Westside, coming for weekly riding lessons at LAEC.

Eleven years ago I finally achieved my life's dream and moved to the Rancho.

This gigantic project ruins the special pocket neighborhood.

This density is not compatible with horse keeping.

My understanding is that Sacramento made a carve out for equestrian neighborhoods.

The swinging bridge is the only access to Griffith Park - this is a major safety concern. That level of density with horse traffic could result in serious injury or death.

This is also too dense in the event of a fire. Embers could easily blow into this area if Griffith Park were to catch fire. We do not want a repeat of the tragic Paradise Fire in Northern California where people could not escape.

Burbank has already added a lot of new housing. Just a couple of blocks away, a huge development is going up at the old Pickwick site. We are satisfying the mandate to offer more housing.

Riverside Drive can not accommodate even more traffic.

Thank you for doing the right thing,
Tori English
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Shireen Fatemi
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 8:34 AM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Objection to the planned development at 910 South Mariposa Condo project 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.

Burbank City Council:

Re: 910 South Mariposa Condo Project
I am writing this to express my objections to the development of the condo project - not only as a resident on Valleyheart Drive, but as a concerned community member about the threat of eliminating the only local safe access to the park not only for horses but for the many other people who enjoy what the park offers.

The common concerns, raised multiple times are outlined below.

1. SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the statute's plain language sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES 910 S Mariposa 2 biologist report was inadequate. 3. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreational. Below are only some examples of safety concerns: 1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers. 2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community. 3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

Shireen Fatemi, MD
Sanchez, Maria
From: Peter Grumbine
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2024 2:03 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Do Not Expand Condos by Historic Mariposa Bridge 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, 1 am writing in regard to the proposed condos at 910 S Mariposa, please respect the wishes of the community and neighbors to protect the historic mariposa bridge crossing and the people and animals that use it, and do not allow the developers to expand beyond their previously approved plans. thank you,
Peter Grumbine
Sanchez, Maria
From: Two Hot Takes
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:55 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Agenda item 9
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 council members,
My name is Morgan Absher and I'm a resident of the Burbank Rancho. and soon to be owner of It is with my greatest hope you decline Agenda item 9-910 Mariposa project 2.

The whole reason 1 moved to this neighborhood and purchased a home is for the equestrian community. I own 3 horses and one of them is going across the Mariposa bridge every day. Not only does this project not fit the SB35 guidelines as the property next to it is industrial, this poses such a great safety risk to all those that utilize this access point to Griffith This project is beyond what is reasonable for the lot. 5 stories with a roof deck that peers into peoples back yards is so inappropriate for an almost exclusive single level home neighborhood. 89 bedrooms.. where are all of these people going to park? In front of these single family homes? The average Burbank resident has a car, the walkability score of this neighborhood is low, and you will have an abundance of traffic congestion and safety issues for pedestrians and horses alike. This is a single lane road leading into where the unit would be located. Is that street going to become a one way? There are so many negative implications of this project that are falling on deaf ears it feels. The trucks for this project do not even fit on the street. The logistics of such a large scale commercial unit do not even make sense for this location. Just look at the picture of the truck blocking the entire road. -AC
We're seeing a similar project underway at the pickwick and units are starting at 1.4 million. This developer is using sb35 as an entry way to exploit an imperfect system under the guise of affordable housing. All at the detriment of the residents and community.

Last, can I ask how many of you have visited this site? Can I ask how many of you have taken a trail ride from a local horse rental and gone across the bridge? If you haven't, I highly recommend you do so you can really garner what's at stake here.

Please take this into consideration if you approve this unqualified development.

Thank you for your time,
Morgan Absher
Sanchez, Maria
From: Kate Adams
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:03 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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 also forgot to attach this photo actually from today. See attached a photo of a white tesla - one of the developer's cars parked in the Mariposa street and the project site's driveway. This is the exact issue I'm explaining in my previous email.

The developer's reckless parking actions today shows the lack of care and consideration by the developer for the community he wishes to develop in, but further proves my point that this is common practice for cars and people to block this road. Once there are 40 units, 89 bedroom with minimum 40 tenants it will become impassable. Mariposa and the developers project plans are inadequate to accommodate an increase of car traffic on this one lane street resulting in public safety issues.

Thank you,

KATE ADAMS
DIRECTOR + PHOTOGRAPHER
K8
On Nov 26, 2024 at 1:41 PM -0800, Kate Adams wrote:

Dear City Council,
I'm writing to you today to talk about the traffic impact to the intersection of Mariposa St and Valley heart where the project 910 S. Mariposa (2) is located. It is proven that a condo development of this size will greatly threaten the public safety and public health to residents and visitors in the area surrounding the project site at 910. South Mariposa (2). This project should not be approved tonight due to this reason and many others outlined by the community. Please read the information below, attachments attached to this email, read & watch the article links, and view the video links; All of the supporting articles, research studies and videos paint a clear picture as to why this project is a threat to the Rancho community and the public who uses this area.
*Please see reports and images attached 15 total attachments* The project states 40 condo units, broken down into 3 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The project application states: 31 x 2 bedroom units and 9 x 3 bedroom units which equals 89 bedrooms. The project has outlined 45 parking stalls on site underground, with one driveway for residents the width of 27'. [See developers project plans]
Mariposa is a one lane road that dead ends at the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Mariposa does not have street parking in front of 910 S. Mariposa (2) project site. There is no shoulder for cars to pass each other and only one side of Mariposa has a sidewalk. The sidewalk is across from the project site does not run the entire length of Mariposa. In front of the adjacent properties north and south of 910S. Mariposa (2) there is no sidewalk and no street parking.

I have used information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to calculate the approximate traffic impacts. [Please see attached for references from ITE] and visit site for comprehensive information: https://www.ite.org/tripgenappendices/ Estimating the daily vehicle trips generated by a 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank, California, involves analyzing trip generation rates and parking requirements.

Trip Generation Estimates:

According to data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), multifamily housing units, such as condominiums, typically generate approximately 7 vehicle trips per day per unit.

Applying this rate:
• Total Units: 40
• Daily Trips per Unit: 7
Estimated Total Daily Vehicle Trips: 40 units × 7 trips/unit = 280 vehicle trips per day ITE states that a common standard is to provide 1 parking space per bedroom. Currently in the developers plans there are insufficient parking stalls for the amount of residents and visitors entering the property.

Parking Considerations:

While specific parking requirements can vary based on local regulations and building design, a common standard is to provide 1 parking space per bedroom.
4 For this building (910 S. Mariposa (2)):
• Total Bedrooms: 89
• Parking Spaces Required for sufficient density: 1 parking stall per bedroom Estimated Total Parking Spaces Needed: 89 spaces
Conclusion:

A 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank is estimated to generate approximately 280 vehicle trips per day per unit. To accommodate residents and visitors, around 89 parking spaces would typically be required, aligning with the standard of 1 space per bedroom.

In addition we must think about the increase in traffic of delivery trucks, food delivery services etc. In the project plans, there are no loading areas for delivery trucks for visiting delivery vehicles. As we know delivery drivers have become a large issue in downtown Burbank on N. San Fernando drive. A common site throughout Burbank are delivery drivers blocking traffic to pick up deliveries from restaurants and businesses. Double parking for loading has become an issue throughout cities in the US. 'In 2019, when reports emerged that UPS racked up nearly $34 million in parking fines in New York City, a spokesperson said the company had instructed drivers to double-park if they couldn't find a legal space.

See Article [https://sfstandard.com/2024/07/31/ups-fedex-delivery-parking-tickets-2023/1 With the increase of density of a building of this size. The lack of parking available to accommodate for the heavy traffic in the developer's application is of great concern.

The lack of parking spaces on the street and lack of parking spots in the developers plans will make Mariposa St. impassable,
To account for deliveries, food delivery, and e-commerce (e.g., Amazon) traffic in addition to resident vehicle trips, we need to add an estimated number of trips based on typical activity patterns for a residential building of this size. Here's how this can be calculated:

1. Base Vehicle Trips
From the earlier estimate:
• 40 units × 7 trips per unit = 280 vehicle trips per day.

2. Delivery Traffic Estimates
Additional traffic from deliveries includes:
a. Package Deliveries (e.g., Amazon, UPS, FedEx)
• Average Package Deliveries Per Household: National studies estimate approximately 1.5 package deliveries per household per week (source: e-commerce studies). • For 40 Units:
• 1.5 packages × 40 units = 60 packages per week,
• Divided by 7 days = ~9 delivery trips per day (assuming most deliveries combine multiple packages per trip).
b. Food Deliveries (e.g., DoorDash, Uber Eats)
• Average Food Deliveries Per Household: Studies suggest that urban households order food delivery approximately 1-2 times per week on average.
• For 40 Units:
• Assuming 50% of units participate in food delivery:
• 20 units × 1.5 deliveries per week = ~30 food deliveries per week. • Divided by 7 days = ~4-5 trips per day
c. Other Service Deliveries (e.g., groceries, maintenance services) • Estimated Service Trips: Additional trips for grocery deliveries (Instacart), cleaners, or maintenance can add another 2-3 trips per day?

3. Total Daily Vehicle Trips
Adding these to the base vehicle trips:

Category Estimated Daily Trips
Resident Vehicle Trips 280
Package Deliveries (Amazon, etc.) 9
Food Deliveries 5
Service Deliveries 3
Total Daily Vehicle Trips ~297 trips
Conclusion
For a 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank, the total estimated daily vehicle trips, including residents and deliveries, would be approximately 297 trips per day. This figure accounts for resident usage as well as modern delivery demands.

I am asking the Burbank City Council and Burbank City Staff to take further action in researching the impacts of a condominium project of this size on Mariposa. Based on the information provided, you can see that there is inadequate parking in the project plans to account for the amount of vehicles entering and exiting the project's property.

This corner of the neighborhood is frequented by residents and visitors to enter Griffith Park and the trails boarding the Los Angeles River by the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Increasing vehicle traffic at this scale on this size of road will greatly impact the safety of residents and visitors.

I should also mention that Mariposa is a street that shares the road with equestrians and horses. With an increase of traffic at this scale, horse riders and horses are put at risk because there will be an increase of cars on the road. The width of the street makes it that only one car can go do Mariposa St at a time. With the increase of traffic, it will create a bottleneck where cars are entering and exiting 910 South Mariposa. John Boroughs Cross country team often runs in packs of 5-25+ students running and using the Historic Mariposa Bridge to train. This does not just affect equestrians this will greatly impact all residents in the surrounding area.

Please watch this video of a delivery being made at 910 S Mariposa (2) where the truck cannot make the narrow turn and obstructs the entire road. https://vimeo.com/1033628660/81410e963e In August 2024, in Compton, California another Equestrian District: Two riders were struck from behind by a car, resulting in serious injuries and a horse was killed at the scene.

See article:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/2-injured-horse-killed-after-being-hit-by-car-in-compton/ In June 2024, In Santa Clarita, California 2 horses were killed after a car struck a group of riders and horses. The riders suffered severe injuries such as a shattered knee cap and head injuries. The riders also mention this was a road they frequently rode on 2-3 times per week.

See article:
https://signalscv.com/2024/06/deputies-collision-that-killed-2-horses-still-under-investigation/ I also want to point out that the above accidents occurred on roads much wider than Mariposa.

I filmed the entrance to the Historic Mariposa Bridge for 3 hours and 167 horses passed in front of my camera.

See video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLS4ttY 01k This is a common day at this intersection with many horses using the trails, bridges and street at Mariposa and Valley Heart.

As outlined by the US forest service there are many considerations to take into account when designing trails, and designing traffic where cars and horses, bikers, pedestrians share a path. As of now I have heard of no studies done by the City of Burbank in regards to public safety and health of the residents and visitors that use this area, street, trails, Historic Bridge.

See US forest service website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232816/page09.htm It is clear that with increased vehicle traffic due to a project of this size on Mariposa, the trails, the street and access to the Historic Mariposa bridge will be negatively affected and obstruct the public being able to safely use these "safe links". Therefore a project of this magnitude on a street of this size and at this precise location, cannot be built without directly affecting the public health and safety of the public.

Unfortunately from City Council meetings the community has raised these concerns before, and I appreciate the City Council's request to investigate the fence along the LA River that is adjacent to the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Though as seen at the City Council meeting last week. Council Member Mullins asked City Attorney if he had looked into the issue and if he could "re send" any research to your desks and emails, his answer was simply "No, I have not sent anything". During the 10/24/23 City Council meeting, all members of the City Council requested that City Staff and the City Attorney to look into this safety concern. Over a year later, City Staff and the City Attorney have not followed up with you or provide you with any information regarding the safety concern of the fence along the river by The Historic Mariposa Bridge and project site for 910 S Mariposa (2) See Video showing excerpts from the city council
meetings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAWwigO-UVg&t=182s In conclusion with all of the useful information above it is clear that the traffic increase and density increase of a project of this scale cannot be supported at this specific location and intersection of roads, trails and Historic Mariposa Bridge. It is clear because of the lack of plans to incorporate the current use of the area into the 910 S. Mariposa project's plans. The public's use and safety are not a concern of the developer. The developer is simply ignoring the community around their project site. The projects application, the city staff report and the lack of work done by the City Staff is not adequate. Simply choosing to omit important information reagarding safety and traffic does not mean that the threat does not exist. That is why I'm providing you with the facts that prove that it is impossible to mitigate the threat to the public's health and safety due to the scale of this project at this specific location. I also want to point out that this threat is present during construction and after completion of the project.

All of these points made are valid reasons to why this application should not be approved. Also as our city council you have the right to request more information on the impacts of a project like this to the community. Simply saying you are not required or it will take to long is not acceptable.

In addition to the above I want to outline that the project does not meet the requirements for SB35 because the project does not qualify as an SB35 project. 1, SB35 Site Eligibility: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. Obstruction of Natural Habitat & Sensitive Species:

I strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. The developer's biologist's report should not be relied on for these reasons:
a. Limited Survey Scope and Methodology:

The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred because of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNutt went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during this constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site. Sensitive species often require multi-seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked.
b. Peer Review Limitations:

While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by thedeveloper and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement. c. Historical Evidence of Habitat:

In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

3. THE HISTORIC MARIPOSA BRIDGE:

The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site. Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally. The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed.

Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

4. NATIVE TRIBE APPROVAL: SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. 8 Attachment 2 of the materials contain a signed enforceable agreement sign with the Kizh Nation for the 30-unit project stated in the developer's initial application. The Kizh Nation signed that agreement with the notating on at their signature which stated "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh Nation of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Nation which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our initial consultation regarding the project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement." There is no enforceable agreement signed by the Kizh Nation for the 40-unit project. How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already wrote down that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only." Don't these laws that require a signed enforceable agreement with the Native Tribes count?

4. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreation. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations. *Please see reports and images attached 15 total attachments* I appreciate your time and service to our community. I'm requesting that you read all of the emails, documents presented to you so that you can see for yourselves that this project cannot be approved as an SB35 project. There is substantial evidence that 910 S. Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements to be an SB35 project and there are quantifiable measures that show that this project is unsafe for our community. You are not legally responsible to approve something you believe will harm the public.

Thank you,
Proud Rancho Resident and Equestrian
Kate Adams

KATE ADAMS
DIRECTOR + PHOTOGRAPHER
K8
Sanchez, Maria
From: Kate Adams
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:42 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) Attachments: imagesforCitycouncil_kateadams.pdf; Trip Generation Review_ Multifamily Housing Land Use - Mike on Traffic.pdf; tian-et-al-2018-trip-and-parking-generation-rates-for- different-housing-types_-effects-of-compact-development.pdf; Safe Encounters with Horses on Shared-Use Trails - American Trails.pdf; Numbers Every Traffic Engineer Should Know - Mike on Traffic.pdf; NITC-RR-878-
Characterizing_Trip_Generation_Profiles_of_Multifamily_Housing_RV_KjzZZ96.pdf; incidentreport_horseaccidentsgreatbritian.pdf; imagesforCitycouncil_kateadams-1.pdf; equestriancrossingsUK.pdf; dvrpc-multifamily-trip-generation-observations-memo ITE.pdf; AADT_Determination_ITE.pdf; 0723-2816-MTDC_ Equestrian Design Guide...s, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, page21.pdf; 0723-2816-MTDC_ Equestrian Design Guide...s, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, page10.pdf; 0723-2816-MTDC_ Equestrian Design Guide..s, Trailheads, and Campgrounds, page09.pdf; 200s - Residential - Modal Data Plots ITE.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.

Dear City Council,
I'm writing to you today to talk about the traffic impact to the intersection of Mariposa Stand Valley heart where the project 910 S. Mariposa (2) is located. It is proven that a condo development of this size will greatly threaten the public safety and public health to residents and visitors in the area surrounding the project site at 910. South Mariposa (2). This project should not be approved tonight due to this reason and many others outlined by the community. Please read the information below, attachments attached to this email, read & watch the article links, and view the video links; All of the supporting articles, research studies and videos paint a clear picture as to why this project is a threat to the Rancho community and the public who uses this area.
*Please see reports and images attached 15 total attachments* The project states 40 condo units, broken down into 3 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The project application states: 31 × 2 bedroom units and 9 x 3 bedroom units which equals 89 bedrooms. The project has outlined 45 parking stalls on site underground, with one driveway for residents the width of 27'. [See developers project plans] Mariposa is a one lane road that dead ends at the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Mariposa does not have street parking in front of 910 S. Mariposa (2) project site. There is no shoulder for cars to pass each other and only one side of Mariposa has a sidewalk. The sidewalk is across from the project site does not run the entire length of Mariposa. In front of the adjacent properties north and south of 910 S. Mariposa (2) there is no sidewalk and no street parking.

I have used information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to calculate the approximate traffic impacts. [Please see attached for references from ITE] and visit site for comprehensive information:
https://www.ite.org/tripgenappendices/
Estimating the daily vehicle trips generated by a 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank, California, involves analyzing trip generation rates and parking requirements.

Trip Generation Estimates:

According to data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), multifamily housing units, such as condominiums, typically generate approximately 7 vehicle trips per day per unit.

Applying this rate:
• Total Units: 40
• Daily Trips per Unit: 7
Estimated Total Daily Vehicle Trips: 40 units × 7 trips/unit = 280 vehicle trips per day ITE states that a common standard is to provide 1 parking space per bedroom. Currently in the developers plans there are insufficient parking stalls for the amount of residents and visitors entering the property.

Parking Considerations:

While specific parking requirements can vary based on local regulations and building design, a common standard is to provide 1 parking space per bedroom.

For this building [910 S. Mariposa (2)]:
• Total Bedrooms: 89
• Parking Spaces Required for sufficient density: 1 parking stall per bedroom Estimated Total Parking Spaces Needed: 89 spaces
Conclusion:

A 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank is estimated to generate approximately 280 vehicle trips per day per unit. To accommodate residents and visitors, around 89 parking spaces would typically be required, aligning with the standard of 1 space per bedroom.

In addition we must think about the increase in traffic of delivery trucks, food delivery services etc. In the project plans, there are no loading areas for delivery trucks for visiting delivery vehicles. As we know delivery drivers have become a large issue in downtown Burbank on N. San Fernando drive. A common site throughout Burbank are delivery drivers blocking traffic to pick up deliveries from restaurants and businesses. Double parking for loading has become an issue throughout cities in the US.
"In 2019, when reports emerged that UPS racked up nearly $34 million in parking fines in New York City, a spokesperson said the company had instructed drivers to double-park if they couldn't find a legal space.

See Article | https://sfstandard.com/2024/07/31/ups-fedex-delivery-parking-tickets-2023/1 With the increase of density of a building of this size. The lack of parking available to accommodate for the heavy traffic in the developer's application is of great concern.

The lack of parking spaces on the street and lack of parking spots in the developers plans will make Mariposa St. impassable.

To account for deliveries, food delivery, and e-commerce (e.g., Amazon) traffic in addition to resident vehicle trips, we need to add an estimated number of trips based on typical activity patterns for a residential building of this size. Here's how this can be calculated:

1. Base Vehicle Trips
From the earlier estimate:
• 40 units × 7 trips per unit = 280 vehicle trips per day.

2. Delivery Traffic Estimates
Additional traffic from deliveries includes:
a. Package Deliveries (e.g., Amazon, UPS, FedEx)
• Average Package Deliveries Per Household: National studies estimate approximately 1.5 package deliveries per household per week (source: e-commerce studies).
• For 40 Units:
2 • 1.5 packages × 40 units = 60 packages per week.
• Divided by 7 days = ~9 delivery trips per day (assuming most deliveries combine multiple packages per trip). b. Food Deliveries (e.g., DoorDash, Uber Eats)
• Average Food Deliveries Per Household: Studies suggest that urban households order food delivery approximately 1-2 times per week on average.
• For 40 Units:
• Assuming 50% of units participate in food delivery:
• 20 units x 1,5 deliveries per week = ~30 food deliveries per week. • Divided by 7 days = ~4-5 trips per day.
c. Other Service Deliveries (e.g., groceries, maintenance services) • Estimated Service Trips: Additional trips for grocery deliveries (Instacart), cleaners, or maintenance can add another 2- 3 trips per day.

3. Total Daily Vehicle Trips
Adding these to the base vehicle trips:

Category Estimated Daily Trips
Resident Vehicle Trips 280
Package Deliveries (Amazon, etc.) 9
Food Deliveries 5
Service Deliveries 3
Total Daily Vehicle Trips ~297 trips
Conclusion
For a 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank, the total estimated daily vehicle trips, including residents and deliveries, would be approximately 297 trips per day. This figure accounts for resident usage as well as modern delivery demands.

I am asking the Burbank City Council and Burbank City Staff to take further action in researching the impacts of a condominium project of this size on Mariposa. Based on the information provided, you can see that there is inadequate parking in the project plans to account for the amount of vehicles entering and exiting the project's property.

This corner of the neighborhood is frequented by residents and visitors to enter Griffith Park and the trails boarding the Los Angeles River by the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Increasing vehicle traffic at this scale on this size of road will greatly impact the safety of residents and visitors.

I should also mention that Mariposa is a street that shares the road with equestrians and horses. With an increase of traffic at this scale, horse riders and horses are put at risk because there will be an increase of cars on the road. The width of the street makes it that only one car can go do Mariposa St at a time. With the increase of traffic, it will create a bottleneck where cars are entering and exiting 910 South Mariposa. John Boroughs Cross country team often runs in packs of 5-25+ students running and using the Historic Mariposa Bridge to train. This does not just affect equestrians this will greatly impact all residents in the surrounding area.

Please watch this video of a delivery being made at 910 S Mariposa (2) where the truck cannot make the narrow turn and obstructs the entire road. https://vimeo.com/1033628660/81410e963e In August 2024, in Compton, California another Equestrian District: Two riders were struck from behind by a car, resulting in serious injuries and a horse was killed at the scene.

See article:
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/2-injured-horse-killed-after-being-hit-by-car-in-compton/ In June 2024, In Santa Clarita, California 2 horses were killed after a car struck a group of riders and horses. The riders suffered severe injuries such as a shattered knee cap and head injuries. The riders also mention this was a road they 3 frequently rode on 2-3 times per week.

See article:
https://signalscv.com/2024/06/deputies-collision-that-killed-2-horses-still-under-investigation/ I also want to point out that the above accidents occurred on roads much wider than Mariposa.

I filmed the entrance to the Historic Mariposa Bridge for 3 hours and 167 horses passed in front of my camera.

See video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLS4ttY 01k This is a common day at this intersection with many horses using the trails, bridges and street at Mariposa and Valley Heart.

As outlined by the US forest service there are many considerations to take into account when designing trails, and designing traffic where cars and horses, bikers, pedestrians share a path. As of now I have heard of no studies done by the City of Burbank in regards to public safety and health of the residents and visitors that use this area, street, trails, Historic Bridge.

See US forest service website: https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232816/page09.htm It is clear that with increased vehicle traffic due to a project of this size on Mariposa, the trails, the street and access to the Historic Mariposa bridge will be negatively affected and obstruct the public being able to safely use these "safe links". Therefore a project of this magnitude on a street of this size and at this precise location, cannot be built without directly affecting the public health and safety of the public.

Unfortunately from City Council meetings the community has raised these concerns before, and I appreciate the City Council's request to investigate the fence along the LA River that is adjacent to the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Though as seen at the City Council meeting last week. Council Member Mullins asked City Attorney if he had looked into the issue and if he could "re send" any research to your desks and emails, his answer was simply "No, I have not sent anything".

During the 10/24/23 City Council meeting, all members of the City Council requested that City Staff and the City Attorney to look into this safety concern. Over a year later, City Staff and the City Attorney have not followed up with you or provide you with any information regarding the safety concern of the fence along the river by The Historic Mariposa Bridge and project site for 910 S Mariposa (2) See Video showing excerpts from the city council meetings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAWwigO-UVg&t=182s In conclusion with all of the useful information above it is clear that the traffic increase and density increase of a project of this scale cannot be supported at this specific location and intersection of roads, trails and Historic Mariposa Bridge. It is clear because of the lack of plans to incorporate the current use of the area into the 910 S. Mariposa project's plans.

The public's use and safety are not a concern of the developer. The developer is simply ignoring the community around their project site. The projects application, the city staff report and the lack of work done by the City Staff is not adequate. Simply choosing to omit important information reagarding safety and traffic does not mean that the threat does not exist. That is why I'm providing you with the facts that prove that it is impossible to mitigate the threat to the public's health and safety due to the scale of this project at this specific location. I also want to point out that this threat is present during construction and after completion of the project.

All of these points made are valid reasons to why this application should not be approved. Also as our city council you have the right to request more information on the impacts of a project like this to the community. Simply saying you are not required or it will take to long is not acceptable.

In addition to the above I want to outline that the project does not meet the requirements for SB35 because the project does not qualify as an SB35 project.

1. SB35 Site Eligibility: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big 4 property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

2. Obstruction of Natural Habitat & Sensitive Species:

I strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. The developer's biologist's report should not be relied on for these reasons:
a. Limited Survey Scope and Methodology:

The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred because of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNutt went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during this constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site. Sensitive species often require multi-seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked.
b. Peer Review Limitations:

While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even
went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by thedeveloper and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement. c. Historical Evidence of Habitat:

In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

3. THE HISTORIC MARIPOSA BRIDGE:

The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site. Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally. The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed.

Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features. Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.
÷ 4. NATIVE TRIBE APPROVAL: SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is *. traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. Attachment 2 of the materials 5 contain a signed enforceable agreement sign with the Kizh Nation for the 30-unit project stated in the developer's initial application. The Kizh Nation signed that
agreement with the notating on at their signature which stated "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh Nation of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Nation which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our initial consultation regarding the
project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement." There is no enforceable agreement signed by the Kizh Nation for the 40-unit project. How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already wrote down that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only." Don't these laws that require a signed enforceable agreement with the Native Tribes count?

4. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreation. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations. *Please see reports and images attached 15 total attachments* I appreciate your time and service to our community. I'm requesting that you read all of the emails, documents presented to you so that you can see for yourselves that this project cannot be approved as an SB35 project. There is substantial evidence that 910 S. Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements to be an SB35 project and there are quantifiable measures that show that this project is unsafe for our community. You are not legally responsible to approve something you believe will harm the public.

Thank you,
Proud Rancho Resident and Equestrian
Kate Adams

KATE ADAMS
DIRECTOR + PHOTOGRAPHER
K8
Sanchez, Maria
From: Susan Arcidiacono •
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:30 PM
To: Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette Subject: NO on 910 S.. Mariposa St. Burbank, CA 91506
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 Esteemed Burbank City Council Members,
I am writing to express my NO for the 910 S.. Mariposa St. Burbank, CA 91506 project. This is a huge condo project located in a 1.01 sq ft. lot and within 50 feet from the Mariposa horse bridge used by many in the Burbank Rancho neighborhood.

Additionally, the scope and size of this new condo project in an R1H equestrian neighborhood will be located next to an existing horse rental business and the horse bridge is a) dangerous, b) ill-fitted into the Burbank equestrian neighborhood and c) irresponsible during and after construction by the city to approve it.

Please consider a much smaller condo project or another use for this 1.01 square foot lot.

Thank you,
Susan Arcidiacono
27 1/2 vears old Burbank Rancho Resident
Sanchez, Maria
From: Lisa Baca
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:34 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Lisa Baca; Roy, James; Gina Keil Cruz
Subject: City Attorney OPINION LACKS PROOF STATE WILL SUE BURBANK for 910 Mariposa 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 and City Council
In the public record file regarding the 910 Mariposa Project, there is no evidence that the State of CA HCDC will take legal action against the City of Burbank if a VOTE to OPPOSE THE SECOND 5 STORY UNDERGROUND PARKING DEVELOPMENT IS TAKEN TONIGHT.

The opinion by the City Attorney of Burbank to endorse the Burbank staff report, which was done originally with out any consideration to the historic significance or engineering fragility of the Mariposa Bridge.

As a reminder, the Mariposa Bridge is the only safe access point to Griffith Park for equestrians.

Please VOTE NO and do your job as city leaders representing the residents of Burbank to challenge the City Attorney's opinion as lacking hard evidence that the state of California will take legal action against the City of Burbank.

This 5 story project with a rooftop garden is for luxury condos and is not affordable housing as intended in SB35.

Thank you,
Lisa Baca
Los Angeles
Equestrian Coalition
Sanchez, Maria
From: Lisa Baca
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:10 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Lisa Baca
Subject: VOTE NO 910 MARIPOSA
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 and City Council Members
The 5 story project IS NOT appropriate for the Burbank Rancho Community and it DOES NOT serve the intention of SB 35 for affordable housing.

The historic and ONLY equestrian access to Griffith Parks' open recreational space is NEGATIVELY impacted by the scale and total incompatibility of this project.

Please VOTE NO.

Thank you,
Lisa Baca
Los Angeles
Equestrian Coalition
Sanchez, Maria
From: Stacey Brownfield
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:10 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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 City Council Members,
As a 14 year resident and homeowner on South Mariposa Street in the Burbank Rancho community, 1 am NOT in favor of the proposed 5-story 40-unit condominium building project at 910 South Mariposa Street.

The proposed project size and scope far exceeds the standards and character of our R1H single family homes and zoning in the immediate surrounding area and the adjoining areas along Riverside Drive and north to Alameda Avenue. This proposed development is too large both physically in size, number of units, and potential number of occupants. The proposed project is located in an environmentally sensitive area immediately adjacent to the Los Angeles River and wildlife habitat areas along both sides of the river.

This extensive project at the proposed location threatens the safety and quality of life for all existing residents and service providers for our homes, along with the local students at LILA and other nearby daycares, schools, cyclists, runners, equestrians with horses, and other pets (very dog friendly area present in the historic Rancho and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Access in this area is limited to single lane streets for residents, cyclists, runners, and commuters to access residences, local businesses inside the Rancho and immediately surrounding areas. Our streets are already experiencing increased traffic density on a daily basis often causing standing traffic and back up for several blocks. There are only 2 very small streets that lead directly to and from the proposed project site in the end corner near the river bridge. This bridge is a pedestrian and cyclist bridge used to access Griffith Park across the LA River; the proposed condominium project would impede access to the bridge due to the immediate proximity.

Our community experiences issues with sewage infrastructure under the current level of housing; this project would put additional strain on the current sewage systems and risk contamination of the LA River immediately adjacent to this site.

The increased density of this proposed project would also challenge the staffing of emergency services at local medical facilities and place additional strain on the already limited emergency services in Burbank.

I appreciate the opportunity to share with you my concerns and those that have been shared with me by my neighbors and | hope the Council will consider and impose appropriate scale and limitations on this proposed project - primarily a significant reduction in the scope and physical size of the project that would be more in harmony with the surrounding homes, natural environment and respect for the sensitive location of the property.

Thank you for your consideration and support,
Stacey A. Brownfield
14 year resident homeowner in the Rancho neighborhood
Burbank, CA
:/CO02:

MOTOS: :: 000Wy•
Sanchez, Maria
From: Friends of Equestrian Bridge
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:40 PM
To: City Council DL; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; [email protected]; Mullins, Zizette Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Prescott, Patrick Subject: Objection to the project development at 910 S Mariposa St 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 Acting Mayor Perez, and Councilmembers Mullins, Takahashi, and Anthony, On behalf of Friends of the Equestrian Bridge I hereby object to the approval of the project development at 910 S. Mariposa, Burbank, the subject of the Public Hearing on your Agenda for the Council meeting this evening, November 26, 2024.

In addition, on behalf of Friends of the Equestrian Bridge, I hereby incorporate by reference the objections to the approval of this project stated by all other commenters this evening and previously raised to date, including, but not limited to, Jamie Hall, Emily Gabel-Luddy, and Nori Walla.

Darcy Conkle
President
Friends of the Equestrian Bridge
Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:47 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Butterfly Gardens:

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 the Burbank City Council:

Well, here we go again.

We are still against the "Butterfly Gardens " at 910 Mariposa St. and would like you to vote, in some way, to show the Burbank City Council's displeasure with the project. We would like you to reject the seemly "fast tracked" application and ask the City Manager and City Attorney to advise the planning department to reject the application and seek clarification of the questions that seem to be exceptions to SB35, and other state laws, that are allowing it.

Appended is our communication with the Council members from 24 July 2023 and I will add another question.

Where is the Benedict Canyon Earthquake Fault?
Was the proximity of this fault even evaluated by the Planning Department? The Geological report is at , https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1981/0296/report.pdf. Especially interesting is a map, page B6, showing the location of the fault to the project. This multistory project is to close this earthquake fault to be safe as was the Capital Records project in Hollywood.

Please find some way to stop this project.

Jay Harmer and Sheila Harmer
24 July 2023
Dear Council Members
We are against the "Butterfly Gardens " at 910 Mariposa St. project and agree with the list of negative community impacts outlined by Nori Walla and Alisa Cunningham in their communications with the council. This projects not consistent with the recent California laws regarding SB 35 ministerial reviews of housing projects since this is not zoned for residential development and does not meet the requirement of SB35 exceptions that call for City Council approvals. It is also against the General Plan and we urge your NO vote.

One, seldom mentioned, impact that future homeowners will suffer from is the existence of high voltage transmission lines just southeast of the site. The effects of these towers and the energy they carry are harmful and are not compatible with residential housing.
1 This project is a stretch of the SB35. Please don't force future council members to face the impacts of freeway, commercial equestrian business, and light industries that are all next door. Please direct the City Attorney to aggressively defend the general plan and the right you have to determine local land us.

How about a compromise. Condemn the land under eminent domain and asses the Rancho via a property tax for the cost. Why not build a park featuring equestrian, jogging and physical fitness features. The future Butterfly Multiuse Park world be an asset to Burbank and the local community unlike the proposed high density housing development.

Thank you,
Jay Harmer cL Sheila Harmer
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Albert Knight
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:19 PN
To: ity Council DL
Subject: Comments on tonight's meeting, specifically the Mariposa Street expansion project.

Attachments: Albert Knight to Burbank 11-26-2024.docx
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.

Please find my comments on the Mariposa Street "2" project, attached.

Albert Knight
Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:43 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa Street Bridge saftey
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,
>
> My horse Mr. Sweetie boards at LAEC. I will be 60 years old next year and I have waited my entire adult life to own a horse. I was finally able to buy my first horse 4 years ago. I learned to ride 30 years ago at TES riding school located in LAEC. Riding in the Griffith Park Hills is a dream, I'm now able to do it on my own horse. I ride with many equestrian friends some live in the Rancho and some board at the LAEC barn. > It is a very unique and special community that we all love, value and appreciate. So much about what makes the Rancho special is being part of a community that has a common love of horses. It brings people together in a unique way.

The community also values the wonderful public and iconic Circle K horse rental business located on Mariposa. Circle K is not only valuable to the Rancho community but to the entire City of Los Angeles and beyond. Many horse lovers and people that may have never seen or ridden a horse can come rent horses and go on beautiful nature rides in Griffith Park. It is a very enriching experience for kids and adults. The Mariposa Street Bridge is the only way for the hundreds of horses stabled in Burbank, Glendale and LAEC to connect to the 55 miles of trails in Griffith Park. Safe and continual access to and across this Bridge is vital to our entire Rancho neighborhood in Burbank, Glendale, and the Los Angeles Equestrian Center.
> Please protect the community by keeping The Mariposa Bridge safe for all equestrians, horses and hikers. Please do not let a small number of developers destroy an entire community. > Thank you
> Stephanie Larrowe
Sanchez, Maria
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 1:09 PM
To: City Council DL; Anthony, Konstantine; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Cc: City Clerks; City Attorney; Hess, Justin; Prescott, Patrick Subject: CalHDF comment re 910 S. Mariposa St for 11/26/24 Council meeting Attachments: Burbank - 910 South Mariposa St - HAA Letter.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.

Dear Burbank City Council,
Please see attached CalHDF's public comment re proposed 40-unit housing development project at 910 S. Mariposa St, calendared as agenda item 0.9. for the 11/26/24 Council meeting.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
Sanchez, Maria
From: Steve Neal
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 12:08 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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,
The 40 unit building planned at 910 S. Mariposa will bring countless new cars to a neighborhood that will already be dealing with an influx of cars from the new Pickwick property.

This will seriously and dangerously compromise the safety of the residents of the neighborhood:
* PARKING: This 40 unit building will only have 45 parking spots. The extra cars will be parked throughout this neighborhood, as well as on and around the blind curve near the stable and horse bridge. Add the big Amazon and UPS trucks and it&rsquo;s a recipe for disaster.
* BLIND CURVE: Mariposa is a one lane street before and in front of this property. It then curves into Valleyheart right at the equestrian bridge. This is a blind curve that is extremely dangerous as is. * SPEEDING: People already speed down Riverside and throughout the neighborhood. My children and I have had many near misses with traffic from the studios as is. This influx of new vehicles jockeying around will be even more of a safety hazard.

Thank you,
Steve Neal
Burbank Rancho Resident since 2010

Sanchez, Maria
From: Linda Lore
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 3:09 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Steve Starleaf
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 - MARIPOSA (2) 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.

SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the statute's plain language sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of " urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreational. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails.

Using the California average of 2 cars per household, this project adds 96 cars to this geographically small neighborhood.
• It is a stunning concept that 1 acre with 48 households and approximately 100 additional cars on Mariposa's one-lane street can be safe for this neighborhood.
• This is a community of pedestrians, (along with many children) horses, dogs, cats, and other animals that walk in the streets.
• Our street, Valley Heart Drive, has NO sidewalks.

Furthermore, Heavy Machinery, Trucks, and Debris increase the clear and present dangers exponentially during construction.

Obstruction of Emergency Routes: Access to first responders in this area is already tight, and the one-lane area is on Mariposa Street. Construction activities on a single-lane road will further obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations.

We respectfully ask the council to reject the proposal from The Butterfly Gardens.

Linda LoRe and Steve Starleaf
Sanchez, Maria
From: Kat Chance
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 3:54 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: FIGHT THE CONDO EXPANSION on Mariposa!
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 City Council Members,
I urge you to reject the proposed condo development at 910 S. Mariposa, as it does not meet the requirements of SB

35. This statute mandates that at least 75% of the project site's perimeter adjoin parcels developed with "urban uses." However, the property to the north, Applied Invention, is primarily industrial and therefore fails to qualify as an "urban use" under SB 35.

The developer's claim that the Applied Invention property qualifies by combining "industrial" and "commercial" uses is misleading. Official records from the LA County Assessor's Office confirm that 77.77% of the Applied Invention property is classified as "industrial," with only a small portion designated as "commercial." While SB 35 allows for the combination of statutorily defined uses like "residential," "retail," and "commercial," it does not permit the inclusion of "industrial," as this use is not listed in the statutory definition.

The developer's attempt to reclassify an overwhelmingly industrial property as an SB 35-qualifying "urban use" is a clear misinterpretation of the law. Approving this project based on such a misrepresentation would set a troubling precedent and undermine the integrity of SB 35's guidelines.

Please protect the integrity of our city's planning process by rejecting this noncompliant proposal.

Sincerely,
Kat Chance
Sanchez, Maria
From: Kandiss Peay
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 6:18 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette
Subject: Preserve Riverside Rancho - Reject 910 S. Mariposa Development 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 City Council Members,
As a dedicated rider and horse enthusiast, I am writing to urge you to reject the proposed 40-unit condo development at 910 S. Mariposa. This project would harm the Riverside Rancho community and threaten the safety of equestrians and their horses, who are an integral part of this neighborhood's identity.

The Mariposa Equestrian Bridge is an essential connection for riders heading into Griffith Park.

Increased traffic, noise, and construction would make it unsafe for riders and horses alike. Horses are naturally sensitive to their surroundings-unpredictable noise or sudden movement can spook them, creating dangerous situations for riders, pedestrians, and drivers. The congestion caused by 40 new units and subterranean parking will only amplify these risks, putting both the equestrian community and the broader neighborhood in harm's way. On top of these safety concerns, this project doesn't even meet the legal requirements for approval under SB 35. For the project to qualify, 75% of its perimeter must adjoin parcels with "urban uses." The property to the north, Applied Invention, is predominantly industrial, with 77.77% of its use classified as such by the LA County Assessor. "Industrial" use does not meet the statutory definition of "urban use, , making this project ineligible for SB 35 approval. As someone who loves this neighborhood for its horse-friendly environment and proximity to Griffith Park's incredible trails, I'm asking you to stand with our community. Approving this development would undermine the safety, culture, and legal integrity of Riverside Rancho. Please reject this project and help preserve the unique character of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Kandiss Peay
Sanchez, Maria
From: Tim Skold
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 7:35 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Protect the Rancho and Reject 910 S. Mariposa
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 City Council Members,
I've been riding horses in Riverside Rancho and Griffith Park for years, and I'm currently in escrow on a home in this amazing neighborhood. I chose this community for its unique equestrian lifestyle and access to trails—a rare treasure in an urban area. That's why I'm deeply concerned about the proposed condo project at 910 S. Mariposa.

The Rancho is built around horses and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge isn't just a landmark; it's a lifeline for riders heading into Griffith Park. Horses are incredibly sensitive to noise and movement, and construction chaos or increased traffic can make them panic, putting everyone around them at risk. I've seen how a startled horse can quickly turn into a dangerous situation, and this project would multiply those risks.

On top of that, from my understanding this development doesn't comply with SB 35. The law requires 75% of the site's perimeter to border properties with "urban uses," like residential or commercial. But the property to the north-Applied Invention-is largely industrial. Official records show 77.77% of that site is categorized as industrial, and industrial use isn't included in SB 35's definition of "urban." It's simple math: this project doesn't qualify for the streamlined approval the developers are pushing for.

This isn't just about numbers or rules; it's about protecting a community that balances city life with a love for horses and nature. Approving this project would harm the safety, culture, and character of the Rancho. I hope you'll stand with the people who call this neighborhood home-both human and horse -and please reject this proposal.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Tim Skold
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Tim Skold
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 7:35 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Protect the Rancho and Reject 910 S. Mariposa
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 City Council Members,
I've been riding horses in Riverside Rancho and Griffith Park for years, and I'm currently in escrow on a home in this amazing neighborhood. I chose this community for its unique equestrian lifestyle and access to trails—a rare treasure in an urban area. That's why I'm deeply concerned about the proposed condo project at 910 S. Mariposa.

The Rancho is built around horses and the Mariposa Equestrian Bridge isn't just a landmärk; it's a lifeline for riders heading into Griffith Park. Horses are incredibly sensitive to noise and movement, and construction chaos or increased traffic can make them panic, putting everyone around them at risk. I've seen how a startled horse can quickly turn into a dangerous situation, and this project would multiply those risks.

On top of that, from my understanding this development doesn't comply with SB 35. The law requires 75% of the site's perimeter to border properties with "urban uses," like residential or commercial. But the property to the north-Applied Invention— is largely industrial. Official records show 77.77% of that site is categorized as industrial, and industrial use isn't included in SB 35's definition of "urban." It's simple math: this project doesn't qualify for the streamlined approval the developers are pushing for.

This isn't just about numbers or rules; it's about protecting a community that balances city life with a love for horses and nature. Approving this project would harm the safety, culture, and character of the Rancho. I hope you'll stand with the people who call this neighborhood home-both human and horse-and please reject this proposal.

Thank you for your time and attention.

Tim Skold
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Regi Toscano
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 9:04 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine; Perez, Nikki; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette Subject: Construction Condo Project Slated for Mariposa 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 Members:
have watched over the last 30+ years, the projects that COB has approved throughout this city. Some of it concerns me.

Most specifically the lack of oversight even on simple projects, like renovating a home. Where they have a permit for a new kitchen, but really did almost the entire home. I have been told by the city that there is just not enough building inspectors, and that may well be the case and why having a project like the one proposed for Mariposa has even greater concern for me.

Rezoning the Rancho and Mariposa area has happened before, Kaufman Broad, with the Dincara homes. They were also supposed to be horse property, well a few are, but the majority have a backyard of 25 feet, so that makes it impossible to place a stall or pen 20 feet from the house and 10 feet from the property line. I watched the construction go up there and remember the day those contractors opened up a very large area next to one of those large electrical pylons. It was approximately 5 x 7-8 feet and had the rebar straight up, that is supposed to be aiding in supporting those towers, they left work for the day, and left it open like that. I personally contacted CA DWP, they were out in under 30 minutes, having a "discussion" with our BWP and the contractor, most of the words I should not use in this email. All it could have taken is a horse spooking at the hole and a person would have been impaled. So again Supervision of major construction sites.

So here we are today placing a fairly good-sized townhomes, in a single family residential area, that has a very narrow street, and is used daily by equestrians, because it is the access to Griffith Park through the swinging bridge.

Now you might think I live in the Rancho, I don't. Most of us who work, or just ride, do not necessarily live in the Rancho.. We do live in Burbank however. Within a short(walk) from my home, there are judges, trainers, horse-show personnel, riders, farrier and the list goes on. This decision is effecting a larger amount of Burbank Residents than you may realize, we work in the equestrian community, own homes here, we shop here, pay taxes here, and oh we vote here as well.

I watched what the lawyer stated at the City Council some months ago, comparing it to the monies spent on the Pickwick case. This is not the Pickwick case, and in addition that law was challenged by another entity, and since has had amendments placed into it, for just these type of reasons. This is simple too dangerous to have a multi family townhomes on this street. And what happened to no two story homes in residential areas? I thank you for taking the time to read through this, should you have any questions, feel free to contact me Sincerely, Regi Toscano
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Karen Pav
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2024 12:13 PM
To: Schultz, Nick
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: NO to 910 S. Mariposa
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 Schultz,
Congratulations on your move to State Congress! I heard your support for the Rancho community at the last city council meeting, and I know you are committed to protecting the culture, community, and environment of Burbank's gateway to Griffith Park. The proposed expanded development at 910 S.

Mariposa is a threat to everything we know is best for the Rancho. Let your Burbank legacy be fighting the developers who are exploiting SB135 at the expense of our environment and community.

The Pickwick condo taught us an important lesson: massive luxury condo complexes destroy public businesses and resources and fail to increase housing for low-income residents. Visit the development at Pickwick and see:
• Riverside drive is
• ripped up for water and power
• Huge equipment is
• parked along Riverside and in the median of the street, causing traffic snarls, preventing pedestrian right-of-way and generating incredible noise and dust •
• Construction scares
• horses walking from the equestrian neighborhood and along the bridle trail The few "low income
units" are priced at $800,000 and do nothing to end California's housing shortage • The development is
• not in keeping with the neighborhood nor the precious and rare Rancho culture 1 BURBANK CITY COUNCIL CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN.

I believe that you will fight for our community and the culture of the Rancho and Burbank, to ensure:
•
•
• Safety for equestrians
in the adjacent Los Angeles Equestrian Center
Safety for pedestrians
and riders who use the abutting trail and historic bridge to Griffith Park •
• Continued safe, public
• horse rentals at the adjacent public riding stables
• Protection for the
• wildlife corridor across the LA River using the historic bridge • Support for the community
• who use the single lane street, enjoy the unobscured views of the park, and value the culture of this rare gem of a unique neighborhood.

The chance of litigation from the developers is real, but you must weigh this short term challenge against the long-term threat to the culture, wildlife, community, and safety of residents. The community will support you! DO NOT LET DEVELOPERS EXPLOIT LEGAL LOOPHOLES in this sensitive and important area that benefits the greater community and allows public access to Griffith Park.

See you on Tuesday.

With respect, hope, and support
Karen Pavliscak
Sanchez, Maria
From: Veronica Lebron
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:18 PM
To: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette; Clark, Kimberley
Cc: Jamie Hall; Hannah Simon; Christopher Rodriguez
Subject: Comments on Proposed SB 35 Housing Development Project, 910 South Mariposa; Project No. 24-0002257; Meeting Agenda Item 9
Attachments: 2024-11-26 Comments on SB 35 Project No. 24-0002257; Agenda Item 9.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.

Good afternoon:

Please see attached for inclusion in the record of the above-referenced matter.

Please confirm receipt.

Thank you.

Veronica Lebron
Practice Manager / Paralegal
Channel Law Group, LLP
****CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED TRANSMISSION****
The information contained within this e-mail and any attached documents) is confidential and/or privileged. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. Unauthorized disclosure, photocopying, distribution or use of the information contained herein is prohibited. If you believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message without copying or disclosing it.
* Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Sanchez, Maria
From:

Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 11:54 AM
To: Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette; Takahashi, Tamala; Anthony, Konstantine Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - 11/26/2024 - AGENDA ITEM #9 - 910 S. MARIPOSA

DEVELOPMENT
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 Acting Mayor Perez, and Councilmembers Mullins, Takahashi, and Anthony, I write to correct the date on the Subject Heading of my email to you of November 24, 2024 regarding Public Comment on the Single Issue re Industrial Use Agenda Item 9, and to add Public Comment on two additional issues regarding the proposed development for 910 S. Mariposa, set for Public Hearing this evening.

Correction of Date in "Subject Heading" for Emailed Public Comment Previously Submitted re Industrial Use Issue for Agenda Item #9
The date I state in the "Subject Heading" of the emailed Public Comment I sent on Sunday, November 24, 2024 was in error. The email "Subject Heading" should have listed the correct hearing date of November 26, 2024.

I hereby incorporate, by reference, my email to you of November 24, 2024, and all the attachments thereto, as part of my Public Comment for the Public Hearing of this evening, November 26, 2024.

The Kizh Nation Did Not Execute an Enforceable Agreement for the 40-unit Project SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project.

Attachment 2 of the materials contain a signed enforceable agreement with the Kizh Nation for the 30-unit project stated in the developer's initial application. The Kizh Nation signed that agreement with a notation at their signature which stated: "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh Nation of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Nation, which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our initial consultation regarding the project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement."
There is no enforceable agreement signed by the Kizh Nation for the 40-unit project.

How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already stated that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only."
What is the point of the consultation with the Native Tribes if their decisions are not respected? The Historical Integrity of the Mariposa Street Bridge is Negatively Impacted by this Development
The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site.

Excerpts from the Nomination of the Mariposa Street Bridge for listing on the National Register of Historic Places include:

Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally.

The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association.

It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed.

Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features.

Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

Respectfully submitted,
Nori Anne Walla
2 Sanchez, Maria
From: Charles Westphal
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:30 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Kramer, Bob
Subject: proposed condo project at 910 S Mariposa
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 Council Members,
The proposed condo project at 910 S Mariposa should be declined. It does not meet eligibility requirements for SB35. The objective standard is not met because the adjacent property is listed as industrial per Burbank records and not commercial.

In addition, proper and timely notice of public hearing was not met as the online documents were not attached until 5 business days prior when the code required 10 business days' notice.

This project should be declined out right and it is within your power to do so regardless of the misinformed opinion of staff.

Sincerely,
Charles Westphal
Thank You,
Charles
Sanchez, Maria
From: Denise Gutches
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:38 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa 2 Application - 910 S. Mariposa
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.

My name is Denise Gutches. My husband and two children have lived at for 26 years, which is located just down the street from the proposed 910 S. Mariposa project. We have lived in Burbank for 36 years and moved to this neighborhood due to its charm, the quiet residential community and the wonderful equestrian experience. The proposed project will change the character of our streets and community in many detrimental ways by increasing traffic significantly in the area, having overflow parking throughout these streets obstructing safe passage, disturbing the natural habitat and overall increasing safety risks for our community and horses.

I work from home, my desk faces Valleyheart Drive and I fondly watch equestrians with their horses walk up and down our street all day long with even more during the weekends. This not a multi-unit complex neighborhood and needs to be preserved for our equestrian community and for the continued safe access and use of the historic Mariposa Bridge.

The City's original approval of the Mariposa 1 application in 2023 was fraught with issues. The Mariposa 2 application expands the scope of this development egregiously. The construction of either of these projects is in a location that endangers the public health and safety of all users of the Burbank City streets in the immediate vicinity of 910S. Mariposa, all users of the Perimeter Trail of the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, and all users of the Mariposa Bridge.

Key Concerns and Issues I am asking the Council to take into serious consideration:

1. SAFETY: The 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians who are both experienced and recreational.

Below are only some examples of safety concerns:
a. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.
b. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.
c. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations Sanchez, Maria
From: Sheri Beltran
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:41 PM
To: City Council DL
Cc: Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette Subject: Cancel the Condos
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 members,
My name is Sheri Beltran and 1 am a resident of the in Rancho Burbank. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed condo project at the foot of the bridge to Griffith Park, particularly in relation to the safety of our community's equestrian lifestyle.

Rancho Burbank is a unique and special place that attracts equestrian enthusiasts like myself, I moved from Florida, specifically to embrace the equestrian lifestyle that Rancho offers. We value the ability to ride horses through our streets and into the trails of Griffith Park.

The community is designed to be horse friendly, with residents regularly riding in neighborhoods and on trails. However, the construction of new condos and the associated increase in traffic would pose significant safety risks for both horses and pedestrians.

The proximity of construction trucks and the resulting traffic congestion, especially near the bridge that provides access to our beloved trails, is a major concern. I worry not only about the safety of my own horses and the horses of my neighbors but also the well being of pedestrians, and other residents who enjoy the area.

Additionally, the ongoing construction of another condo project directly across from our community already raises concerns about increased traffic and noise. The cumulative impact of these developments could drastically alter the character of our town and diminish the safety and enjoyment of our equestrian lifestyle.

I urge you to consider the implications of this project on our community and the unique environment we cherish. It is essential to prioritize the safety of our residents, both human and equine, as well as to preserve the distinctive charm of Rancho Burbank.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I appreciate your commitment to maintaining the quality of life in our city and hope that my concerns will be taken into account.

Sincerely,
Sheri Beltran
1 Sanchez, Maria
From: Denise Gutches
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:38 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Mariposa 2 Application - 910 S. Mariposa
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.

My name is Denise Gutches. My husband and two children have lived at for 26 years, which is located just down the street from the proposed 910 S. Mariposa project. We have lived in Burbank for 36 years and moved to this neighborhood due to its charm, the quiet residential community and the wonderful equestrian experience. The proposed project will change the character of our streets and community in many detrimental ways by increasing traffic significantly in the area, having overflow parking throughout these streets obstructing safe passage, disturbing the natural habitat and overall increasing safety risks for our community and horses.

I work from home, my desk faces Valleyheart Drive and I fondly watch equestrians with their horses walk up and down our street all day long with even more during the weekends. This not a multi-unit complex neighborhood and needs to be preserved for our equestrian community and for the continued safe access and use of the historic Mariposa Bridge.

The City's original approval of the Mariposa 1 application in 2023 was fraught with issues. The Mariposa 2 application expands the scope of this development egregiously. The construction of either of these projects is in a location that endangers the public health and safety of all users of the Burbank City streets in the immediate vicinity of 910S. Mariposa, all users of the Perimeter Trail of the Los Angeles Equestrian Center, and all users of the Mariposa Bridge.

Key Concerns and Issues I am asking the Council to take into serious consideration:

1. SAFETY: The 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians who are both experienced and recreational.

Below are only some examples of safety concerns:
a. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.
b. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.
c. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations

2. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES: This development is located just feet from the LA River, along a Habitat Corridor identified under the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project, (which is a project funded by Congress to restore native riparian, freshwater marsh and aquatic habitat communities along the Los Angeles River). The construction of this development at this location endangers the wildlife habitats.

3. SB35 SITE ELIGIBILITY: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

Thank for your time and consideration to preserve our quiet equestrian community.

Film
LA
Denise Gutches
Chief Financial and Operatin? nice.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Reagan Gift
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:47 PM
To: City Council DL; Schultz, Nick; Perez, Nikki; Mullins, Zizette Subject: Public Comment - Public Hearing for 2nd SB35 application for Condo Development at 910 S. Mariposa, Burbank
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.

Good Afternoon,
I am writing to provide public comment on the issue of Condo development at 910 S Mariposa. The construction of these condos would do irreparable damage to the equestrian community that has loved, served, and proudly called Burbank their home. Allowing this construction to move forward would mean displacing and destroying the businesses and homes that create sanctuary and bring vibrant, unparalleled life and community to the The loss of access to the bridge would deny residents and their animals the right to Griffith Park, a right which has been cemented for decades.

The Rancho is one of the most unique parts of California that I have ever had the privilege of knowing. A truly hidden gem. Burbank has fostered, for many years, a most rare and beautiful flower in the big city. It is the duty of those who call Burbank home to continue to preserve it.

I urge you to heed the concerns of your constituents, and put the families who rely on you first and foremost. Protect the environment, protect one another, preserve the living and the land, and watch how the riches sprung from goodwill will find you tenfold.

Stop the condo construction, save the Rancho.

Thank you.

Sanchez, Maria
From: Liz Radley
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2024 2:56 PM
To: Perez, Nikki; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala; Mullins, Zizette; City Council DL Cc: Kramer, Bob
Subject: 5 POINTS IN OPPOSITION TO MARIPOSA 2 CONDOS - 11/26/2024 Council Meeting Agenda Item #9
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, Vice Mayor, City Council and staff:
1 believe that the Mariposa 2 project fails to meet the SB35 requirements.

Here are FIVE points to consider:

APPLIED INVENTION - 1ST POINT
SB 35 requires that 75% of the perimeter of the project site adjoin parcels that are developed with "urban uses." "Urban uses" is defined as any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility or retail use or any combination of those uses.

The property to the north of 910 S. Mariposa, Applied Invention, is not an SB 35 qualified urban use. The Applied Invention property is an industrial use. We know that because the official records of the LA County Assessor's Office specifically states that the "Use Type" of the property is "Industrial." While there are portions of that property that the Assessor's Office identifies as "commercial," most of the property has been identified as "industrial." A simple math calculation to determine the square footage of each of the "subparts" on the Assessor's records results in 77.77% of the Applied Invention property identified as "industrial." This is important, because the developer's team has told you that the property of Applied Invention is both industrial and commercial, and then they conclude "that as a commercial use it qualifies" for SB 35. But it does not qualify. That is because although you can combine statutorily authorized uses, such as "retail" and "residential," or "commercial" and "residential," because retail and residential and commercial uses are each listed in the statutory definition, you cannot combine "industrial" and "commercial" because "industrial" is not listed in the definition.

The developer's team is trying to transform a property that, at 77.77% industrial, is overwhelmingly industrial, into something that it is not. That is not right.

Please reject this project as it does not comply with the SB 35 statute.

APPLIED INVENTION - 2ND POINT
SB 35 requires that 75% of the perimeter of the project site adjoin parcels that are developed with "urban uses." "Urban uses" is defined as any current or former residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility or retail use or any combination of those uses.

The Staff Report says that the property to the north of 910 S. Mariposa, Applied Invention, is a "commercial" use within the meaning of the statute. Staff says that it is a commercial use because the City's business license says that the use is "general office," and that Burbank's Building & Safety Department categorizes Applied Invention as a "Miscellaneous Business Service." Each of those descriptions is remarkable.

On their business license application, Applied Invention checked a box that said they were in the business of "Assembly/Manufacturing" and that they provided "Personal and Business Services." When asked if they had any equipment that was not regular office equipment, Applied Invention said that they used a waterjet, a 3D printer, a CNC machine, and a lathe machine. All of these machines are used in fabrication of products made of metal, plastic, wood, ceramic, stone, composite, and glass. This is not equipment used in a "general office." But it is equipment used by never even think of. Like a 10,000-year clock, and a motorized, interactive, self-calibrating portable telescope, and a wind turbine defense system to protect the elevated portion of a wind turbine. And a myriad of other inventions very tightly protected under extensive Non-Disclosure Agreements.

Applied Invention is in the business of Research, Development, and Custom Manufacturing, and according to our Burbank Codes, and the common practice in Land Use Planning across the state, the business of Applied Invention is a "light industrial" use, not a "commercial" use.

MARIPOSA STREET BRIDGE
The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site.

Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally.

The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed. Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features.

Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

Additionally, it is clearly labelled to carry just 6 Horses at one time. So there are already engineering limits in place. It appears that the County of Los Angeles inspects it, and Burbank maintains it to their specifications. We need a full engineering report from the County of Los Angeles or appropriate sources to review if the bridge will remain safe during the deep underground excavation and vibrations just 53' feet away. If it could result in metal fatigue, cracks or other damage that would render it unsafe. I believe this risk challenges the Site Eligibility clauses in SB35.

Even if approved, ground-breaking should not go forward without full verification that the historic bridge (which creaks and groans with horses going over it) is currently safe and functional for the project to 2 begin and would remain safe and functional through the construction period, despite extensive and continued concussion and vibration from the subterranean excavation. This deep excavation was NOT in Mariposa 1, previously approved by council. It is a key difference between Mariposa 1 and Mariposa

2. As this bridge is completely within the City of Burbank, I understand that liability for death or injury for its physical failure would fall on the City, even if other parties were also included in a lawsuit.

NATIVE TRIBE WRITTEN APPROVAL
SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project.

Attachment 2 of the materials contain a signed enforceable agreement sign with the Kizh Nation for the 30-unit project stated in the developer's initial application. The Kizh Nation signed that agreement with the notation at their signature which stated "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh Nation of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Nation which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our initial consultation regarding the project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement."
There is no signed enforceable agreement signed by the Kih Nation for the 40-unit project.

How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already wrote down that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only." If there is no signed enforceable agreement on the website, even if acquired at the last minute, does not meet the notification requirements of SB35.

PUBLIC SAFETY
I was trained in the United Kingdom, where the Government has training programs and examinations to verify the level of Equestrian experience and expertise. These are run by the British Horse Society. The US has no such programs.

I am certified as a British Horse Society Trainer, Instructor and Stable Manager, which requires years of experience and days of exams. I am qualified to act as an Expert Witness and Senior Examiner, and it is considered a Bachelor of Science level. I have more than 50 years of equestrian experience, specializing in safety.

In my professional opinion, the proximity of 910 S. Mariposa to the equestrian community's trails, streets and sole bridge over the LA River cannot be made safe to an acceptable level.

Both during construction and afterwards, the effects of heavy construction both subterranean and above ground, and the subsequent increase in vehicular traffic patterns in this tiny area cannot be made safe, simply a little less unsafe by steps like a higher fence between the trail and the River. This is a unique location, and there are no precedents for a location like this regarding safety - 'A River Runs Through It." Thus we cannot rely on precedent here. There is no other route, no way to mitigate the risk by diversion.
3 There are risks to pedestrians and other road and trail users if normal well-trained horses are provoked beyond a reasonable level into a flight response. Their instinct is to flee the area in the face of predators, which construction equipment may certainly simulate. Even high level parade training can still leave them startled and reactive by elements such as crane moving overhead, or extremely loud or unpredictable noises such as debris falling.

This is the hub of 100% of the hundreds of horses that live in the Burbank Rancho, Glendale Rancho and Los Angeles Equestrian Center, which is a part of Griffith Park, also on the National Historic Register.

Horses have lived here since before the creation of the United States of America - they verifiably came to the Rancho with the DeAnza expedition in February 1776 and horses have remained here ever since, sleeping on the same land their predecessors slept on. How tragic if SB35 rips this history apart Thank you for reading, and for your best attempts to help under the tremendous pressure of HCD and SB35.

Liz Radley, BHSI

CATIE ROSSI
(2082)
PUBLIC COMMENT FOR AGENDA ITEM 9 -

11.26,24
MARIPOSA (2)
From: Kate Adams l November 26 at
1:41 PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Mullins, Zizette I [email protected] Dear City Council,
I'm writing to you today to talk about the traffic impact to the intersection of Mariposa Stand Valley heart where the project 910 S. Mariposa (2) is located. It is proven that a condo development of this size will greatly threaten the public safety and public health to residents and visitors in the area surrounding the project site at 910. South Mariposa (2). This project should not be approved tonight due to this reason and many others outlined by the community. Please read the information below, attachments attached to this email, read & watch the article links, and view the video links; All of the supporting articles, research studies and videos paint a clear picture as to why this project is a threat to the Rancho community and the public who uses this area. *Please see reports and images attached 15 total attachments* The project states 40 condo units, broken down into 3 bedroom and 2 bedroom units. The project application states:
31 x 2 bedroom units and 9 x 3 bedroom units which equals 89 bedrooms. The project has outlined 45 parking stalls on site underground, with one driveway for residents the width of 27'. [See developers project plans] Mariposa is a one lane road that dead ends at the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Mariposa does not have street parking in front of 910S. Mariposa Mariposa project site. There is no shoulder for cars to pass each other and only one side of Mariposa has a sidewalk. The sidewalk is across from the project site does not run the entire length of Mariposa. In front of the adjacent properties north and south of 910 S. Mariposa (2) there is no sidewalk and no street parking.

I have used information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) to calculate the approximate traffic impacts. [Please see attached for references from ITE] and visit site for comprehensive information :
www.ite.org/tripgenappendices/
Estimating the daily vehicle trips generated by a 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank, California, involves analyzing trip generation rates and parking requirements.

Trip Generation Estimates:

According to data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), multifamily housing units, such as condominiums, typically generate approximately 7 vehicle trips per day per unit.

Applying this rate:
• Total Units: 40
• Daily Trips per Unit: 7
Estimated Total Daily Vehicle Trips: 40 units × 7 trips/unit = 280 vehicle trips per day ITE states that a common standard is to provide 1 parking space per bedroom. Currently in the developers plans there are insufficient parking stalls for the amount of residents and visitors entering the property.

Parking Considerations:

While specific parking requirements can vary based on local regulations and building design, a common standard is to provide 1 parking space per bedroom.

For this building [910 S. Mariposa (2)):
• Total Bedrooms: 89
• Parking Spaces Required for sufficient density: 1 parking stall per bedroom Estimated Total Parking Spaces Needed: 89 spaces
Conclusion:

A 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank is estimated to generate approximately 280 vehicle trips per day per unit. To accommodate residents and visitors, around 89 parking spaces would typically be required, aligning with the standard of 1 space per bedroom.

In addition we must think about the increase in traffic of delivery trucks, food delivery services etc. In the project plans, there are no loading areas for delivery trucks for visiting delivery vehicles. As we know delivery drivers have become a large issue in downtown Burbank on N. San Fernando drive. A common site throughout Burbank are delivery drivers blocking traffic to pick up deliveries from restaurants and businesses. Double parking for loading has become an issue throughout cities in the US.
"In 2019, when reports emerged that UPS racked up nearly $34 million in parking fines in New York City, a spokesperson said the company had instructed drivers to double-park if they couldn't find a legal space.

See Article [ sfstandard.com/2024/07/31/ups-fedex-delivery-parking-tickets-2023/] With the increase of density of a building of this size. The lack of parking available to accommodate for the heavy traffic in the developer's application is of great concern.

The lack of parking spaces on the street and lack of parking spots in the developers plans will make Mariposa St. impassable.

To account for deliveries, food delivery, and e-commerce (e.g., Amazon) traffic in addition to resident vehicle trips, we need to add an estimated number of trips based on typical activity patterns for a residential building of this size. Here's how this can be calculated:

1. Base Vehicle Trips
From the earlier estimate:
• 40 units × 7 trips per unit = 280 vehicle trips per day.

2. Delivery Traffic Estimates
Additional traffic from deliveries includes:
a. Package Deliveries (e.g., Amazon, UPS, FedEx)
• Average Package Deliveries Per Household: National studies estimate approximately 1.5 package deliveries per household per week (source: e-commerce studies).
• For 40 Units:
• 1.5 packages × 40 units = 60 packages per week.
• Divided by 7 days = ~9 delivery trips per day (assuming most deliveries combine multiple packages per trip). b. Food Deliveries (e.g., DoorDash, Uber Eats)
• Average Food Deliveries Per Household: Studies suggest that urban households order food delivery approximately 1-2 times per week on average.
• For 40 Units:
• Assuming 50% of units participate in food delivery:
• 20 units × 1.5 deliveries per week = ~30 food deliveries per week. • Divided by 7 days = ~4-5 trips per day.
c. Other Service Deliveries (e.g., groceries, maintenance services) • Estimated Service Trips: Additional trips for grocery deliveries (Instacart), cleaners, or maintenance can add another 2-3 trips per day.

3. Total Daily Vehicle Trips
Adding these to the base vehicle trips:

Category Estimated Daily Trips
Resident Vehicle Trips 280
Package Deliveries (Amazon, etc.) 9
Food Deliveries 5
Service Deliveries 3
Total Daily Vehicle Trips ~297 trips
Conclusion
For a 40-unit condominium building with 89 bedrooms in Burbank, the total estimated daily vehicle trips, including residents and deliveries, would be approximately 297 trips per day. This figure accounts for resident usage as well as modern delivery demands.

I am asking the Burbank City Council and Burbank City Staff to take further action in researching the impacts of a condominium project of this size on Mariposa. Based on the information provided, you can see that there is inadequate parking in the project plans to account for the amount of vehicles entering and exiting the project's property.

This corner of the neighborhood is frequented by residents and visitors to enter Griffith Park and the trails boarding the Los Angeles River by the Historic Mariposa Bridge. Increasing vehicle traffic at this scale on this size of road will greatly impact the safety of residents and visitors.

I should also mention that Mariposa is a street that shares the road with equestrians and horses. With an increase of traffic at this scale, horse riders and horses are put at risk because there will be an increase of cars on the road. The width of the street makes it that only one car can go do Mariposa St at a time. With the increase of traffic, it will create a bottleneck where cars are entering and exiting 910 South Mariposa. John Boroughs Cross country team often runs in packs of 5-25+ students running and using the Historic Mariposa Bridge to train. This does not just affect equestrians this will greatly impact all residents in the surrounding area.

Please watch this video of a delivery being made at 910 S Mariposa (2) where the truck cannot make the narrow turn and obstructs the entire road. vimeo.com/1033628660/81410e963e In August 2024, in Compton, California another Equestrian District: Two riders were struck from behind by a car, resulting in serious injuries and a horse was killed at the scene.

See article:
www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/2-injured-horse-killed-after-being-hit-by-car-in-compton/ In June 2024, In Santa Clarita, California 2 horses were killed after a car struck a group of riders and horses.

The riders suffered severe injuries such as a shattered knee cap and head injuries. The riders also mention this was a road they frequently rode on 2-3 times per week.

See article:
signalscv.com/2024/06/deputies-collision-that-killed-2-horses-still-under-investigation/ I also want to point out that the above accidents occurred on roads much wider than Mariposa.

I filmed the entrance to the Historic Mariposa Bridge for 3 hours and 167 horses passed in front of my camera.

See video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLS4ttY 01k This is a common day at this intersection with many horses using the trails, bridges and street at Mariposa and Valley Heart.

As outlined by the US forest service there are many considerations to take into account when designing trails, and designing traffic where cars and horses, bikers, pedestrians share a path. As of now I have heard of no studies done by the City of Burbank in regards to public safety and health of the residents and visitors that use this area, street, trails, Historic Bridge.

See US forest service website: www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232816/page09.htm It is clear that with increased vehicle traffic due to a project of this size on Mariposa, the trails, the street and access to the Historic Mariposa bridge will be negatively affected and obstruct the public being able to safely use these "safe links". Therefore a project of this magnitude on a street of this size and at this precise location, cannot be built without directly affecting the public health and safety of the public.

Unfortunately from City Council meetings the community has raised these concerns before, and I appreciate the City Council's request to investigate the fence along the LA River that is adjacent to the Historic Mariposa Bridge.

Though as seen at the City Council meeting last week. Council Member Mullins asked City Attorney if he had looked into the issue and if he could "re send" any research to your desks and emails, his answer was simply "No, I have not sent anything". During the 10/24/23 City Council meeting, all members of the City Council requested that City Staff and the City Attorney to look into this safety concern. Over a year later, City Staff and the City Attorney have not followed up with you or provide you with any information regarding the safety concern of the fence along the river by The Historic Mariposa Bridge and project site for 910S Mariposa (2) See Video showing excerpts from the city council meetings: www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAWwigO-UVg&t=182s In conclusion with all of the useful information above it is clear that the traffic increase and density increase of a project of this scale cannot be supported at this specific location and intersection of roads, trails and Historic Mariposa Bridge. It is clear because of the lack of plans to incorporate the current use of the area into the 910S.

Mariposa project's plans. The public's use and safety are not a concern of the developer. The developer is simply ignoring the community around their project site. The projects application, the city staff report and the lack of work done by the City Staff is not adequate. Simply choosing to omit important information reagarding safety and traffic does not mean that the threat does not exist. That is why I'm providing you with the facts that prove that it is impossible to mitigate the threat to the public's health and safety due to the scale of this project at this specific location. I also want to point out that this threat is present during construction and after completion of the project.

All of these points made are valid reasons to why this application should not be approved. Also as our city council you have the right to request more information on the impacts of a project like this to the community. Simply saying you are not required or it will take to long is not acceptable.

In addition to the above i want to outline that the project does not meet the requirements for SB35 because the project does not qualify as an SB35 project.

1. SB35 Site Eligibility: The site eligibility requirements of SB 35 are objective standards, and the plain language of the statute sets an objective standard for the properties adjoining the project site. That objective standard requires that at least 75% of those adjoining properties fit the statutory definition of "urban use." The big property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial. So, the objective standard is not met, and Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB

35. 2. Obstruction of Natural Habitat & Sensitive Species:

I strongly oppose the approval of this development due to unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. The developer's biologist's report should not be relied on for these reasons:
a. Limited Survey Scope and Methodology:

The biologist report commissioned by the developer occurred because of city staff asking the developer to commission a statement of habitat. The South Environmental report states that the developer's biologist James McNutt went to the site on June 4, 2024 and the report relies on this field survey conducted during this constrained timeframe and specific conditions, at a very dry time of year and after the developers had already damaged the site.

Sensitive species often require multi-seasonal studies, as their cryptic behavior and burrowing habits make detection challenging. If these surveys were not conducted over an extended period, across various seasons, or under ideal environmental conditions, sensitive species may have been overlooked. b. Peer Review Limitations:

While the developer and the City have asserted a peer-reviewed report of the developer's biologist's statement of habitat, this peer review does not independently validate field findings but instead evaluates the methodology of the statement of habitat for consistency with general standards. Indeed, the peer review does not indicate that the reviewing biologist even
went to the site. Without extensive independent site studies, the peer review cannot definitively rule out the habitat's importance for this species. Additionally, the peer review is paid for by thedeveloper and the reviewing biologist may have a conflict or vested interest in validating the prior statement. c. Historical Evidence of Habitat:

In December 2022 and again in July 2023, Daniel Cooper, the Senior Conservation Biologist for Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains, who had personally studied this area 10 years earlier leading the USGS Griffith Park Wildlife Connectivity Project, submitted letters to City Council highlighting that the project site represents a potential habitat for the sensitive species. These findings were grounded in soil characteristics, vegetation cover, and microclimate data typical of this species' habitat. The absence of comprehensive rebuttals by the developer's biologist addressing this evidence weakens the developer's claims.

In conclusion, we respectfully request that the Council deny approval of this project until these critical environmental concerns are resolved. According to the SB 35 statute, the preservation of our sensitive species and ecological integrity must take precedence over expedited development.

3. THE HISTORIC MARIPOSA BRIDGE:

The Mariposa Street Bridge was placed on the National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024. It is 53 feet from the project site of the proposed single building, 5-story, 40-unit condo site. Designed for conveyance of horses and people, the Mariposa Street Bridge is significant for its association with the equestrian history of Los Angeles County. It is the only historic bridge providing equestrian access over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park. The bridge supports the ongoing, historic equestrian use of the neighborhood and equestrian community more generally.

The bridge retains a high degree of integrity from when it was constructed and is nearly identical to its original appearance. It retains integrity of feeling and association, It literally bridges the equestrian areas on the north side of the bridge with the trails in Griffith Park on the south side of the bridge and continues to serve the function and equestrian audience for which it was designed and constructed.

Our historic properties should be protected from adverse effects. Those adverse effects include introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features.

Approval of this 5-story project, with communal roof deck, within feet of the Historic Mariposa Street Bridge, adversely effects the integrity of feeling and association, which are part of the contributing factors for its placement on the National Register of Historic Places.

4. NATIVE TRIBE APPROVAL: SB 35 requires the City to engage in consultation with any California Native Tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project. Attachment 2 of the materials contain a signed enforceable agreement sign with the Kizh Nation for the 30-unit project stated in the developer's initial application. The Kizh Nation signed that agreement with the notating on at their signature which stated "this condition is for this project only." The City notified the Kizh Nation of the 40-unit project. The emails between the City and the Kizh Nation which are included in Attachment 2, state that the Kizh Nation would "proceed with the agreement we previously submitted for this project. This decision is based on the significant resources in the area that were already discussed during our initial consultation regarding the
project and its location. Please consider this our decision to move forward with the existing signed enforceable agreement." There is no enforceable agreement signed by the Kizh Nation for the 40-unit project. How can the City proceed with the 40-unit project without the Kizh Nation specifically signing off on it? The Kizh Nation already wrote down that the agreement for the 30-units was "for this project only." Don't these laws that require a signed enforceable agreement with the Native Tribes count?

4. SAFETY: 910 S Mariposa Condo Development will pose a threat to public safety and endanger a wide range of individuals, including drivers, delivery workers, first responders, bicyclists, pedestrians (with dogs, strollers, or children), school runners, and equestrians, both experienced and recreation. Below are only some examples of safety concerns:

1. Traffic Risks: The Project will increase traffic, on-street parking, and accident risks due to limited visibility and crowded roads. It will also endanger runners, pedestrians, and equestrians using the Mariposa Bridge and nearby streets and trails. Heavy Machinery, Trucks and Debris exponentially increase the clear and present dangers.

2. Sewage and Infrastructure Strain: The existing issues and smell from the current sewage infrastructure, combined with the additional units, will lead to overflows or leaks, posing health hazards to the entire community.

3. Obstruction of Emergency Routes: The construction activities on a single-lane road will obstruct emergency routes, delaying timely responses from first responders during critical situations. *Please see reports and images attached 15 total attachments* I appreciate your time and service to our community. I'm requesting that you read all of the emails, documents presented to you so that you can see for yourselves that this project cannot be approved as an SB35 project. There is substantial evidence that 910 S. Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements to be an SB35 project and there are quantifiable measures that show that this project is unsafe for our community. You are not legally responsible to approve something you believe will harm the public.

Thank you,
Proud Rancho Resident and Equestrian
Kate Adams

KATE ADAMS
DIRECTOR + PHOTOGRAPHEF
K8
October 3rd 2023 Delivery being made
910 South Mariposa

CATIE ROSSI

11.26.24 (1082)
Figure I: Photo accompanying article describeng bridge dedication, photo caption rends, "Paula Paliner, left, and Helen Grifith were amung the tirst riders 1o cross new 513,000 saspension-/ур egussirian bridge near Babank yesteray following its dodication. The span gos iles access te Griffich Park crails" (Les Angles Trnes, March 19, 8939) friendsoftheequestrianbridge.org

SABRINASILVER
1).26.24
(10 83)
• April 10, 2024
1:45 p.m.
910 S. Mariposa seen from Griffith Park Perimeter Trail, I saw a man with a chain saw
cut off the limb of the elderberry tree
1o cut low h

2.. pur
man vaing chas shao to contive cutting branch himb.

Limb
man moring limb then continues to cut it into smaller prees.

SABRINA SILVER

11.26.24 (2083)
Revised lanstains, omitd Pages, hand dian page o location of Rider 16:9
May 6, 2023
Griffith Park - Perimeter Trail
P.

May 6, 2023
Griffith Park - Perimeter Trail
LAEd Barns E & F
Workers are dismantling
the pipe stalls at 910 S. Mariposa
910 S. Mariposa
PH
910 S, Maripos
Horse reacts
p5
910 S. Marlpos:

Horse reacts
P6
910 S. Mariposa
Horse reacts
P7
16:9
910 S. Marlposa
Horse reacts to the activity
16-9
910 S. Mariposa
pa
910 S. Mariposa
PLO
• 910 S. Mariposa
910 S. Mariposa
910 S. Mariposa
Rider attempts to urge horse forward
econstruction noise - activity tupsethim. PB
ontinues to spook hoos
910 S. Mariposa
Rider attempts to urge horse forward
Tato S. Mariposa
Rider attempts to urge horse forward
He planes fret, backse, ete.
916 5. Магірова
Changes plans
Rider decides not to push
Horse
910 S. Mariposa
Changes plans
call tariend, waits for companion to return Pi
StarTs WAlking back P/B
to The wAy They Came
- LAỆC B
BehinD cameras LACC Barns EFF
accen to mausosa да
rane
Reinve
910 S: Marlposa
riders return the way they came
LOCATIOn DE Rideng in clip
maciNOSEst 910s. Paus
marposa
стлий TerT
Darn
pe
RaiL
smallest net in P21

SABRINA SILVER

11.2624
From: Sabrina Silver 3083)
To: citycouncil @burbankca.gov
Re: Public Comment on Burbank City Council meeting 11-26-2024 item #9 - Mariposa (2) Members of the Burbank City Council and Mayor,
I urge you to oppose Item #9 - Mariposa (2), 910 S. Mariposa application. The proposed project abuts an active horse trail ("behind' the property) routed between the project and three busy horse barns at LAEC. Horses boarding in Barns D, E, and Fat LAEC, and the horse rental barn directly next to the site, as well as ALL Rancho riders using the Perimeter trail enroute to the ONLY access to Griffith Park's interior trails - the historic Mariposa Bridge (listed on the National Registry of Important Places) will be significantly negatively impacted: their life, health, and safety put in danger by this project. Please reject this proposal. It is a serious matter.

1. Safety:

Horses are thousand pound plus prey animals evolved with highly developed senses and reactions to survive ambush and tracking predators. Novel stimuli, especially when loud or chaotic, activates a flight response. It's instinctive.

Equestrians try to be situationally aware and anticipate what might be of concern to their horse. However, it will not be possible to avoid this location if one either boards in LAEC Barns D, E, and For rents from the neighboring rental barn Studio Rentals, or if one wishes to ride in the interior of Griffith Park as it will be necessary to ride next to the project site.

As you can see in the attached PDF of screengrabs from the video and in the 54-second video itself, construction activity can result in a frightened horse. That day, the activity was relatively minor. A construction project of the scale proposed, with the need to excavate underground parking and build 5 stories high will be active, chaotic, noisy, and not routinized. It is a reasonable expectation that multiple horses passing by will become frightened and react. Due to the many riders, it would be reasonable to expect injuries, perhaps serious or deadly, to horse and rider. This project poses a reasonable expectation of hazardous (potentially deadly) conditions to all nearby equestrians.

Riders very in ability from experienced to first timers, including children, out for a pleasant rent ride.
100% of riders east of the 5 freeway and north of the Los Angeles River will need to pass directly next to or proximate to this site enroute to Griffith Park's interior (with its 55 miles of recreational trails) due to the site's proximity to the ONLY equestrian access into the park - the Mariposa Bridge, which is designated on the National Registry of Historic Places for its importance in the equestrian history of this area.

Construction at this location poses safety risks that cannot be mitigated due to the site's location; it is SURROUNDED by active equestrian trails and barns. The active equestrian use of multiple barns, trails, and streets surrounding the site puts all equestrians near it in serious danger of injury or death that cannot be mitigated. • Abutting/East: Griffith Park's Perimeter Trail which abuts three LAEC's barns/equine amenities.
• Abutting/South: Studio (horse) Rentals which abuts Burbank's southern access trail to the Mariposa Bridge
• Abutting/West: Mariposa Street - used by (mostly) Burbank riders to access the Mariposa Bridge from multiple city streets.

2. SB35 Site Eligibility:

The site is NOT eligible, as it is NOT (as was represented by the developers) 75% surrounded by "urban use". The property on the North side of 910 S. Mariposa does not meet that definition because it is industrial, not commercial, therefore does not meet the "urban use" definition. Therefore Mariposa (2) does not meet the requirements for SB 35.

DIRECTLY abutting the proposed site is a rental barn which provides horses for people wanting to experience open space and recreational opportunities in Griffith Park. Though a rental barn may be 'commercial,' as money is exchanged for the pleasure of renting a horse to ride into the open space of Griffith Park, it does not fall within the intention or spirit of the term "urban use."
The same applies to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center (LAEC), where many horses, including mine, have boarded for years. Technically, yes, it is commercial. LEAC hosts events for which they are paid, however, the primary focus and use is on horses and equine recreational activities. LAEC is also a park. It is situated within Griffith Park and is surrounded by the Perimeter Trail, which lies between LAEC and the proposed project's site. The project does NOT directly abut LAEC. It abuts a Griffith Park trail.

Foryears, I have paid for board, people to feed my horse hay, that I also paid for and is delivered to my barn; I have paid trainers, farriers, etc. My purpose is to enjoy nature and my and other horses. To rest and recreate. The purpose and focus of LAEC is RECREATIONAL. The use of LAEC does not fall within the intention or spirit of the term "urban use."

3. OBSTRUCTION OF NATURAL HABITAT & SENSITIVE SPECIES
There are unresolved ecological concerns regarding the presence of sensitive species. I believe that the elderberry tree is one such species. I witnessed disregard on this site for one of these trees and species dependent upon it when I saw a large limb (or trunk?) of an elderberry tree being cut down with a chain saw. This act demonstrates a lack of regard or concern regarding natural habitat and sensitive species. It seems unlikely that this would change.

Attachment exhibits:

I have attached a pdf of screenshots from a video I took on the Perimeter trail between the site and LAEC's Barns E and F. It has two clips: one of a horse objecting to deconstruction on the proposed site - taken May 6, 2023, and the other of the dispatch of elderberry tree limb or trunk that was chain sawed off and cut up on the site - taken April 10, 2024. Here is a link to the pdf: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1g9jsd4xxijltipirhfdo/item-9-mariposa-2- from-Perimeter-trail-horse-reacts-sawn-off-elderberry-
limb.mp4?rlkey=(4r0utubtxrq4bwlbik4v2pz4&st=hrax5t0b&dl=0 I have also included a link to the video from which I took the screengrabs, which I would like to have entered into the record. It is downloadable from Dropbox, as it was too large to attach directly. Link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/1g9jsd4xxijltjpjrhfdo/item-9- mariposa-2-from-Perimeter-trail-horse-reacts-sawn-off-elderberry- limb.mp4?r|key=r4r0utubtxrq4bwlbik4v2pz4&st=015iuqjz&dl=0 DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO CLIP1 taken May 6, 2023, on Griffith Park Perimeter Trail between LAEC and 910 S. Mariposa.

I took footage of the perimeter trail when a trio of riders attempted to ride past the site at 910 S. Mariposa on the Perimeter trail next to LAEC. Workers on the 910 S. Mariposa site were dismantling/deconstructing pipe stalls remaining from the property's former use as a boarding facility. While I was recording, one of the horses on the trail objects to unfamiliar sounds, smells, and other stimuli. He plants his hooves and tosses his head. He hops, rears, bucks, sidesteps, tries to spin, turns around, and he backs up. Eventually the rider decides NOT to continue forward and calls to the other riders to return. The three of them then backtracked the way they came.

DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO CLIP2 taken April 10, 2024, on Griffith Park Perimeter Trail between LAEC and 910 S. Mariposa.

NOTE: I was riding on the Perimeter trail and heard a chain saw. I looked up and saw a person (man) on the 910 S. Mariposa site cut a limb (trunk?) of an elderberry tree with it. I pulled out my phone and began recording. My horse objected to being asked to stop next to the unfamiliar and loud noise of the chain saw. The video shows the person using the chain saw and moving the large limb, which took a bit of effort.

I urge each of you to reconsider the recommendation you have been given. It is up to you to protect that which will be put in harm's way should the project be approved: people - the riders, horses, habitat, sensitive species and ecosystems, the historic Mariposa Bridge, placed orthe National Register of Historic Places on March 25, 2024, all of which will be irreparably harmed should this project - that does not even meet the requirements to move forward - be approved to move forward.
thank you be poure Consinti

NORI WALLA
11,26.24
(1 of 3)
(Images Source: Friends of the Equestrian Trail)
New Develoment at the Mariposa Bridge - 3D Model Exhibit

O THE KOUESTRIAN

FRIENDS OF THE EQUESTRIAN BRIDGE
910 S. Mariposa Street FRIENDS BRID
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024
Table of Contents
Site Location Page 2
Site Aerial Page 3
Viewpoint Location Map Page 4
3D Viewpoint Perspectives Page 5-9

CONDO SITE
within 53ft
(Source: Friends of the Equestrian Trail)
New Development Site Location
3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024 Page 2
(Image Source: Friends of the Equestrian Trail)
Site Aerial
3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street I THE COVESTA
Burbank, CA. 91506 ¡ RIENOS
November 25, 2024 | Page 3
View Locations
• West Facade
3 South Facade
3 Nort/West Facades
4 South Facade
5 East Facade
1: 1,633
(Source: Friends of the Equestrian Trail)
Viewpoint Location Map
3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024 Page 4
West Facade (looking east from Valley Heart Drive)
910 S. Manposa development proje
existing flag pole.
100 o
T.

LA. River 53-fee
Valley Heart
Before For Height Reference After - 3D Model
(Source: Google maps)
3D Viewpoint Perspectives
3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024 | Page 5
South Facade (looking north from Equestrian Bridge)
Before After - 3D Model
(Source: Google maps)
3D Viewpoint Perspectives
3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024 | Page G
North/West Facades (looking south from Mariposa Street) Before After - 3D Model
(Source: Google maps)
3D Viewpoint Perspectives
3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024 | Page 7
South Facade (looking north on Equestrian Trail near utility tower) Before After - 3D Model
(Source: Google maps)
NOTE:

Elevation of property is higher from Viewpoint Location than 3D Viewpoint Perspectives represented in geo-location reference information from SketchUp. 3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
November 25, 2024| Page 8
5 East Facade looking northeast from Equestrian Trail near utility tower) Before After - 3D Model
(Source: Google maps)
NOTE:

Elevation of property is higher from Viewpoint Location than 3D Viewpoint Perspectives represented in geo-location reference information from SketchUp. 3D Model Exhibit of New Development near Mariposa Bridge 910 S. Mariposa Street
Burbank, CA. 91506
0O4
November 25, 2024| Page 9

NORI WALLA
|1.26.24
(20 £ 3)

VIEW OF CLOSED LARGE TENT AT APPLIED INVENTION

MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
RANCHO King Gillette Ranch
Simil
[RECREATION

NORI WALLA

11.26,24
November 26, 2024 (3 f 3)

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Acting Mayor Nikki Perez
Councilmember Konstantine Anthony
Councilmember Tamala Takahashi
Councilmember Zizette Mullins
City of Burbank
275 East Olive Avenue
Burbank, California 91502
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
City Council Consideration of Development Project at 910 S. Mariposa Street Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA), partially exercising the powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy (SMMC or Conservancy), a state agency, offers the following comments on the proposed development project at 910 S.

Mariposa Street (Project). We understand that the City of Burbank (City) is evaluating whether to approve the Project as a streamlined development pursuant to SB 35 (Government Code Section 65913.4).

The Conservancy was created as part of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Act, which established the Santa Monica Mountains Zone ("Zone"). The project site proposed to be developed is immediately adjacent to and touches portions of Griffith Park (APN 5581-001-906), which is within the Zone. The City of Los Angeles has determined that this area provides "high" Mountain Lion Potential as shown in its the Zone Information and Map Access System ("ZIMAS") see excerpt directly below.

Environmental
Santa Monica Mountains Zone Yes
Biological Resource Potential High
Mountain Lion Potential High
Monarch Butterfly Potential No
As the MRCA's longtime senior ecologist, I concur with the City of Los Angeles' conclusion that the area, including the project site in question at 910 S. Mariposa Street, provides habitat for the local population of State-listed mountain lion. This particular area A local public agency exercising joint powers of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation & Park District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation & Park District pursuant to Section 6500 et seq. of the Government Code.

CRIME IN THE CITY OF BURBANK
source: https//www. NeighborhoodScout.com
Satellite

NEIGHBORHOOD
scqut Security Gauge Chang
. =
Satellite Highway Higt
La Tuna
ALLEY
134
EWY
Bur +

APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF PROPOSED CONDOS
0OD
+ A
Forest Lawn
VEST Memorial Park
BLENDAL * il • mapbox
Griffith Park • Legal City Boundary
Legal City Boundary
Safest Most
Safest Most
Dangerous

11.26.24 Public Comments
Veronica Christenson

DARCY CONKLE
)1.26:24
Dear Acting Mayor Perez, and Councilmembers Mullins, Takahashi, and Anthony, I object to the SB35 Mariposa 2 project at 910 S Mariposa St Burbank CA 91506. 1) Sensitive species habitat was not addressed properly. The land has not been graded in over 60 years. See the attached pictures.
2) Migratory birds - what studies have been done on them? Attached are several articles discussing the larger impact new buildings are having on the bird population. This property is right next to LA River Restoration project which is working to protect the habitat of the animals and birds.

Kizh Nation stated in their email that they do not agree to the new 40-unit project and did not sign the enforceable agreement.
4) A letter from the MOUNTAINS RECREATION & CONSERVATION AUTHORITY addressing their concerns regarding this project
5) A letter from Miguel Ordeñana talking about the importance of the wildlife crossing bridge at Mariposa and how the project will affect the wildlife.
6) You can vote no if you do not agree with staff and feel they have overlooked or interpreted some documents incorrectly. The property to the North is not commercial it is industrial and has never been commercial.

Darcy Conkle
:

Miguel Ordeñana
11/26/2024
Mayor Nick Schultz
Vice Mayor Nikki Perez
City of Burbank Council Members Tamala Takahashi, Zizette Mullins and Konstantine Anthony 275 E. Olive Ave.

Burbank, CA 91502
Dear Mayor Nick Schultz
Vice Mayor Nikki Perez:
in Southern California, including urban mammals as indicators of ecosystem health and My name is Miguel Ordeñana, and I am a wildlife biologist that has been studying urban wildlife mates, shelter, and food resources, which is critical for ecosystem health in highly fragmented connectivity, since 2006. Wildlife corridors facilitate healthy gene flow and provide access to habitat like Los Angeles, Burbank and Glendale. These cities act as major barriers between large urban oases like the Verdugo Mountains and Griffith Park. The Griffith Park ecosystem and Study, which I helped lead with the support of the Friends of Griffith Park. The functionality of surrounding corridors became a research focus in 2011 through the Griffith Park Connectivity the Mariposa Bridge as a corridor has part of the study. edges of the Griffith Park ecosystem in addition to monitoring potential corridors that could act The goal of the Griffith Park Connectivity Study was to document wide-ranging animals on the within their territories. The species of focus were coyotes, deer, bobcats, and gray foxes that as linkages between Griffith Park and surrounding habitat and neighborhoods that are included require connectivity between Griffith Park and surrounding habitat to have sustainable providing ecosystem services such as consuming large numbers of rats, mice, and squirrels. populations. The roles of these species as predators or as herbivores keep ecosystems in balance, connectivity existed between Griffith Park and surrounding urban ecosystems via 2 freeway These rodent species can be vectors of disease. The project successfully confirmed that limited freeways to the LA River, and the Mariposa Bridge which connects wildlife across a steep overpasses that extend over the 101 freeway, 3 equestrian tunnels that run below the 5 and 134 have monitored urban bat and carnivore activity along the Los Angeles River and urban bats at channelized section of the LA River to the Burbank neighborhoods to the North. Additionally, I the Equestrian Center. The Mariposa Bridge is one of only a few safe habitat corridors that connect the Griffith Park wildlife populations. The bridge has been a reliable corridor for both humans and wildlife for many years that wildlife have adapted to using.

Mayor Nick Schultz
Vice Mayor Nikki Perez
11/26/2024