Burbank City Council approves Talaria project

Calling the Talaria at Burbank mixed-use project proposed in the city’s Media District “too dense” and “not appropriate,” Burbank Mayor David Gordon chastised his City Council colleagues for supporting the development on Tuesday.

Gordon cast the lone dissenting votes in a series of 4-1 votes to approve four measures that cleared the way for the proposed 241-unit luxury apartment complex on top of a 43,000-square-foot Whole Foods to move forward.

“All of you have dropped the ball,” Gordon said during a council discussion that capped off a lengthy public hearing on the matter.

The hearing on Tuesday had been continued from an Oct. 7 meeting when a capacity crowd filled council chambers and nearly 50 concerned residents voiced their support or opposition to the project, many concerned with potential traffic and environmental impacts.

Developer Michael Cusumano, city staff and others involved with the project also gave testimony, rebutting public comments and answering dozens of questions posed by council members.

The mayor’s concerns centered on the project’s Environmental Impact Review, which he said fell short of city and state requirements, but he also cited a number of additional issues.

He highlighted concerns about pedestrian and wheelchair accessibility, traffic impacts and an exception that will allow the developer to construct the project with 18 more apartments than would normally be allowed under the city’s general plan.

However, Councilwoman Emily Gabel-Luddy said she felt the offsets the city required for approval of the additional units were proportionate. The offsets include a provision that the development obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification as a “green building.”

Despite Gordon’s strong objections, his fellow council members said that after reviewing all of the material, including hundreds of emails from the public, they each concluded the project should get the green light — but not without an amendment intended to reduce traffic impacts.

In light of substantial public comment from residents concerned about existing and future traffic issues in the area around the development and a 20-minute video illustrating the problem, the council adopted an amendment requiring the developer to contribute an extra $100,000 toward traffic mitigation in the area for a total of $250,000.

According to the development agreement, the developer had already committed $150,000 for the project.

“The hell these people have been put through down there, it’s about time they got something,” said Councilman Gary Bric, who proposed the amendment.

The council also adopted a measure to set aside an additional $750,000 for traffic mitigation, including cul-de-sacs, which several area residents had lobbied to have installed to prevent cut-through traffic on their residential streets.

“I think it is imperative that we restore the quiet,” said Gabel-Luddy. “The neighbors really do deserve to have their neighborhood back.”

The extra money will come out of proceeds from the $1.2-million sale of city-owned property to the developer for the project.

The sale price of the city’s property — which an appraiser valued at just under $1 million on the low end and $3.7 million on the high end — was another point of contention Gordon raised during the council’s discussion.

He argued that because the land is critical to the developer’s plans, “it’s absolutely worth every penny” of the nearly $4-million valuation.

The $1.2-million purchase price represented a steep discount of around 70% because of the irregular shape and location of the plots, which include part of Avon Street, an alley and a strip of land on the proposed site, according to city staff.

City Manager Mark Scott cautioned against setting a precedent of selling such “remnant” properties for the maximum appraisal price, but said it was up to the council. He said staff opted for a public discussion of the sale price knowing it might get “awkward.”

Gordon said he would have considered a discounted price, just not as steep as what staff proposed. However, the council did not opt to seek a higher sale price.

“If there ever was a giveaway, that’s a giveaway,” Gordon said.