Letter to the Editor:
Regarding the City Council’s proposed settlement with the developer of the Pickwick project the following are my public comments to the Council on April 18, 2022. The night of the hearing to determine the project’s eligibility under the State of California’s SB-35 guidelines:
“My name is Paul Herman, long time Burbank resident and local small business owner. I’ve talked a lot in the past about the need for local control of our housing policy here in the City of Burbank. Unfortunately, due to the NIMBY advocates that never want to build anything, anywhere in Burbank, our control has been usurped by the brain trust up in Sacramento. I am not a fan of SB-35, but I don’t see any way around it in this instance. I’ve heard the arguments that this project doesn’t conform with SB-35 because the Pickwick property isn’t zoned for residential.
Well, I reviewed our general plan and housing element, and that argument is patently false. It’s clear as day that the FAR for residential development in the Commercial-Recreation zoning where the project is located is .60 or 20 units per acre. Once again, I’m not a fan of SB-35 but the law is the law. The whole purpose of SB-35 was to expedite projects just like this, with ministerial approval, so city councils, just like you, don’t have a say in the approval so long as the project conforms with the city’s development and design standards. Frankly, I don’t know how you can have a special meeting about this project, because, per SB-35, you should have no discretion over its approval.
Now, you can go the route of the Oakland City Council which voted down an SB-35 project in their city, and just like Oakland, the City of Burbank will get sued by the developer. If you go that route, however, I think you’ve abdicated your fiduciary responsibility to your constituents outside of the Rancho. Why should all the residents outside of the Rancho have to foot the legal bills because the Rancho folks will never let anyone build anything in their backyards. The people that live in the Rancho have to remember that they are part of this City too, and, if we are going to have a serious conversation about our housing crisis maybe they will have to bear a little bit of the burden as well.
In all honesty, though, this project won’t be a burden to the Rancho it will be a blessing. It is low density and low impact. It includes for sale housing (that our city desperately needs) and will encourage pride of ownership. Yes, the naysayers (pun intended) always point to that old stalking horse (double pun intended), of traffic. I haven’t seen the traffic studies, and, frankly I don’t need to, to tell you that the impact on traffic from 96 new dwelling units will be negligible at best. I guarantee no one in the Rancho will even notice the difference if this project is built.
You know… people keep pointing out that the zoning for the Pickwick property is Commercial-Recreation and not residential. Well, what if a developer decided to build an amusement park instead of low-density housing… what do you think the Rancho people would say about traffic, then?”
I’m no Nostradamus but I was easily able to predict that the City Council made a foolish error by rejecting this project’s SB-35 status. And how do I know this? Because the City Council’s proposed settlement agreement with the developer garnered nearly zero concessions from the developer. The settlement agreement calls for the developer to reduce the project from 96 units to 92 units. It requires the developer build a ten-foot bridle trail and an eight-foot sidewalk. Finally, it requires the developer to put up sound blankets during demolition of the Pickwick site. Wow! What amazing negotiating skills…these are all things the developer would have agreed to regardless of the Council’s denial of this project.
What does the city give up? Well, the City will have to pay the developer $100,000 in legal fees, and, best of all, the City Council will be required to receive professional training on state housing laws by no later than March 31, 2023. Slow clap for the City Council. And don’t let them try to gaslight you by spinning this settlement as any sort of a win for the city because it is not. The City Council took a position that this project does not qualify under SB-35. Well apparently, it does because the settlement agreement explicitly states that the city must update its SB-35 project website to include this project. Also, in my experience usually the guy paying the other guy’s legal fees is the loser in any litigation.
Unfortunately, as I predicted, all the residents of Burbank will be required to foot the bill for the City Council’s foolish actions. In addition to paying the developer $100,000 in legal fees the City Council has already paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to outside council representing the City on this matter. Furthermore, there have been untold hours accumulated of in-house City staff time likely adding up to hundreds of thousands of dollars more in wasteful spending. I for one think it is important, and call on the City Council, to undertake a comprehensive audit of the total cost of this boondoggle; including the entirety of all staff time devoted to working on it. That way, the next time the Council says they don’t have enough money to pay for something we’ll know who to blame.
Paul Herman
Burbank
