|
COUNCIL AGENDA - CITY OF BURBANKTUESDAY,
JUNE 24, 2003
|
This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at this meeting. The complete staff report and all other written documentation relating to each item on this agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the reference desks at the three libraries and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any question about any matter on the agenda, please call the office of the City Clerk at (818) 238-5851. This facility is disabled accessible. Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision or hearing impairments (48 hour notice is required). Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5021 voice or (818) 238-5035 TDD with questions or concerns.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY SESSION:
Staff will make a comprehensive presentation of traffic and transportation issues to serve as a backdrop for the City Council�s discussion. To ensure that adequate time is available for a full discussion of these matters, the study session is scheduled to continue at the July 15, 2003 Council meeting. The presentation will cover the measurement and trend of regional and local traffic volumes, how the local roadway system is being improved to handle the additional traffic, the forecasting of future traffic conditions, the methodology for determining the impacts of a particular development project, the funding and programming of transportation improvements, neighborhood protection, trip-reductions programs, and public transit and other transportation alternatives. Traffic conditions are largely the result of four interrelated variables: demand, capacity, traffic characteristics, and travel alternatives. The presentation will discuss the various ways by which the City responds to current traffic and transportation needs and plans future improvements by effecting each of these four traffic variables. Maintaining adequate circulation requires a comprehensive effort in several areas.
|
6:30 P.M.
INVOCATION: Reverend Roby Correa, Magnolia Park United Methodist Church. The Courts have concluded that sectarian prayer as part of City Council meetings is not permitted under the Constitution.
FLAG SALUTE:
ROLL CALL:
ANNOUNCEMENT: WEDNESDAY NIGHT PRIME TIME PROGRAMS.
ANNOUNCEMENT: PLANNING BOARD AND YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD VACANCIES.
ANNOUNCEMENT: AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY SPECIAL EVENT:
COUNCIL COMMENTS: (Including reporting on Council Committee Assignments)
INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS: At this time additional items to be considered at this meeting may be introduced. As a general rule, the Council may not take action on any item which does not appear on this agenda. However, the Council may act if an emergency situation exists or if the Council finds that a need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda. Govt. Code �54954.2(b).
6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 2001-11: CHANGES TO BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES:
The purpose of this report and public hearing is to recommend changes to Burbank Municipal Code Chapter 31, Article 6, Div. 3.5 (�31-625.1 et seq.) �Second Dwelling Units in Single Family Residential Zones� as a result of the passage of Assembly Bill 1866 (AB 1866) in September 2002 which mandated second dwelling units be processed ministerially beginning July 1, 2003.
On May 13, 2003, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 3622 which eliminated the previous requirement for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a second dwelling unit, and also made certain changes to the development standards for second dwelling units including requiring a 300 foot (ft) separation between lots with approved second units. The Council directed staff to develop procedures for ministerial review and approval of second dwelling unit permits including provisions for public notification and appeals.
The proposed ordinance provides procedures for applying for and processing second dwelling unit permits, and provides that henceforth approvals of second dwelling units will be made by the Community Development Director. It includes some provisions to expedite the processing of second units to avoid unnecessary delay in building second units and denying permits to other applicants. It also provides for public notice of the Director�s decision to approve (or disapprove) a second unit application to the property owner and residents within 300 ft of the proposed unit.
Finally, the proposed ordinance provides procedures for appeal of the Director�s decision to the Planning Board and City Council. Because AB 1866 directs that after July 1, 2003, second dwelling unit approvals must be approved without discretionary review or hearings, the grounds for appeal of second dwelling units permits will be very limited, restricted essentially to applications which violate a specific development standard for second dwelling units in the Burbank Municipal Code.
Recommendation:
1. Introduction of proposed ordinance entitled: (motion and voice vote only required) AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADDING SECTION 31-625.11 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND A NOTICE AND APPEAL PROCEDURE FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS.
2. Adoption of proposed resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE III OF RESOLUTION NO. 26,506, THE BURBANK FEE RESOLUTION, RELATING TO SECOND DWELLING UNIT PERMITS.
FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (One minute on any matter concerning City Business.)
There are four segments of Oral Communications during the Council Meeting. The first precedes the Closed Session items, the second and third segments precede the main part of the City Council�s business (but follow announcements and public hearings), and the fourth is at the end of the meeting following all other City business.
Closed Session. During this period of oral communications, the public may comment only on items listed on the Closed Session Agenda(s). A PINK card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to three minutes.
First Period of Oral Communications. During this period of Oral Communications, the public may comment on any matter concerning City Business. A BLUE card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. NOTE: Any person speaking during this segment may not speak during the third period of Oral Communications. Comments will be limited to one minute.
Second Period of Oral Communications. This segment of Oral Communications immediately follows the first period, but is limited to comments on agenda items for this meeting. For this segment, a YELLOW card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to four minutes.
Third Period of Oral Communications. This segment of oral communications follows the conclusion of agenda items at the end of the meeting. The public may comment at this time on any matter concerning City Business. NOTE: Any member of the public speaking at the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during this segment. For this segment, a GREEN card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to three minutes. City Business. City business is defined as any matter that is under the jurisdiction of the City Council. Although other topics may be of interest to some people, if those topics are not under City Council jurisdiction, they are not City business and may not be discussed during Oral Communications.
Videotapes/Audiotapes. Videotapes or audiotapes may be presented by any member of the public at any period of Oral Communications or at any public hearing. Such tapes may not exceed the time limit of the applicable Oral Communications period or any public comment period during a public hearing. The playing time for the tape shall be counted as part of the allowed speaking time of that member of the public during that period.
Videotapes must be delivered to the Public Information Office by no later than 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the Council meeting in a format compatible with the City�s video equipment. Neither videotapes nor audiotapes will be reviewed for content or edited by the City prior to the meeting, but it is suggested that the tapes not include material that is slanderous, pornographic, demeaning to any person or group of people, an invasion of privacy of any person, or inclusive of material covered by copyright.
Printed on the videocassette cover should be the name of the speaker, the period of oral communication the tape is to be played, and the total running time of the segment. The Public Information Office is not responsible for �cueing up� tapes, rewinding tapes, or fast forwarding tapes. To prevent errors, there should be ten seconds of blank tape at the beginning and end of the segment to be played. Additionally, the speaker should provide the first sentence on the tape as the �in cue� and the last sentence as the �out cue�.
As with all Oral Communications, videotapes and audiotapes are limited to the subject matter jurisdiction of the City and may be declared out of order by the Mayor.
Disruptive Conduct. The Council requests that you observe the order and decorum of our Council Chamber by turning off or setting to vibrate all cellular telephones and pagers, and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks. Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Council is in session, and the display of signs in a manner which violates the rights of others or prevents others from watching or fully participating in the Council meeting, is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor.
Once an individual is requested to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor, that individual may not return to the Council Chamber for the remainder of the meeting. BMC �2-216(b).
Individuals standing in the Council Chamber will be required to take a seat. Also, no materials shall be placed in the aisles in order to keep the aisles open and passable. BMC �2-217(b).
Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.
COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Four minutes on Agenda items only.)
COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
RECESS for the Redevelopment Agency meeting.
RECONVENE for the City Council meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR: (Item 2)
The following item may be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on this item unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent calendar and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A roll call vote is required for the consent calendar.
Approval of minutes for the regular meetings of May 1, 2003, the adjourned meeting of May 3, 2003, and the regular meeting of May 6, 2003.
Recommendation:
Approve as submitted.
END OF CONSENT CALENDAR *** *** ***
REPORTS TO COUNCIL:
3. RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES:
Recently enacted California legislation requires Burbank to develop a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by the end of the calendar year. The RPS is intended to serve as a guide for procuring renewable energy by Burbank Water and Power (BWP). This staff report discusses where BWP stands with respect to developing an RPS and outlines the efforts undertaken in procuring energy from renewable sources in context of the current situation as well as potential future resources.
The RPS requirements for investor owned utilities (IOUs) are specifically outlined in Senate Bill (SB) 1078 which requires increase in procurement of electricity from �eligible� renewable resources by at least one percent per year until they reach a target portfolio level of 20 percent by December 31, 2017, measured by the amount of energy procured in making retail sales of electricity. As well, acceptable renewable resources are defined.
The IOU�s have submitted their RPS implementation plans to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for approval indicating their understanding of the legislation that rates will not be raised in order comply. The intent is to use a portion of the public benefits funds (17 percent) to buy down the cost of renewable energy. And, they would buy only as much renewable energy as the pool of money supported. Currently, they are waiting for a response from the CPUC.
Under the legislation, municipal electric utilities are given wide latitude in setting their RPS in that they are not required to adopt any particular percentage goal for renewables, or give a target date, nor are they limited to particular technologies. Rather, the utilities are only required to adopt and enforce a renewable standard that makes sense for their service territory and customers, and report, on an annual basis, the results achieved by their expenditures and programs. Currently, staff is unaware of any municipal utility in the State that has adopted an RPS, with many appearing to be taking a �wait and see� attitude hoping to take advantage of what others are doing. BWP has been working on a Renewable Portfolio Standard for Burbank and a draft of the proposed standard has been presented to the Council with the final draft to be presented to the Council for approval by December 2003.
There are two significant sources of renewable energy in our existing energy portfolio - the purchase power agreements for Hoover and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). However, there is debate whether power from large hydroelectric developments such as Hoover and BPA should be considered renewable energy. Congress is currently working on a new energy bill that may qualify large hydroelectric power as renewable. If it becomes law, BWP will have a strong basis for taking credit for Hoover and BPA as renewable energy and would be on track to meet the target date of SB 1078.
BWP also buys a considerable amount of �spot� or �economy� power from the Pacific Northwest. Although the origin of this power is difficult to track, the majority of it is hydro based adding another 6 to 10 percent of renewable energy to BWP�s resource mix. During the past several years, Burbank has undertaken a number of initiatives to add additional renewable resources to its power supply portfolio. In May 1998, Burbank installed a 4 kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic solar demonstration project. Since then, this facility has been operating reliably producing power about 25 percent of the time. In July 2001, Burbank began producing power using landfill gases (methane) that were previously flared. This was accomplished by installing ten 30 kW Capstone micro-turbines at the City�s landfill, producing an output of 300 kW, or enough power to support 250 to 300 homes. The project gave BWP the distinction of being the world�s first operator of a landfill power project using micro-turbine technology. The units are operating about 80 percent of the time.
In July 2002, Burbank placed into service two small hydroelectric generators that collectively produce approximately 400 kW. This project exploits a required pressure reduction where the City�s water facilities interface with the Metropolitan Water District at the Valley pumping plant.
The Clean Green Support Program which began late 2001 offers Burbank residents the opportunity to support green energy production. Since the program�s inception, BWP has purchased 20,231 (MegaWatt hours) MWh of California Green Tickets. BWP has been working in concert with other Southern California municipalities exploring the feasibility of wind, solar, biomass, or geothermal generation projects ranging in size up to 50 or 100 MegaWatts (MWs). The parties have been coordinating their efforts through the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA). In 1999 BWP considered developing green-waste-to-energy. A Los Angeles based company proposed a European gasification approach that converted green waste into a combustible gas that was used to drive an electric generator. However, BWP was unable to develop a successful relationship with the developer and instead began focusing on developing a combined cycle plant that ultimately led to the Magnolia Power Project. Further work needs to be done in evaluating the idea, gaining a better understanding of the technology, confirming the economics of the project, choosing a site, and securing partners. If the project pencils out, the likelihood of it becoming a successful development is perceived to be realistic but challenging as the project is local and the potential partners have considerable influence and control in the region including long-term control of the fuel source. BWP considers the potential development of a local green-waste-to-energy plant to be a worthwhile effort and intends to work with others on its development.
Staff will continue to focus on resolving the issues mentioned in this report in order to ensure that energy from renewable resources remains a significant portion of our power portfolio. Staff will also continue working on the goal of acquiring and developing renewable resources as aggressively as customer energy demand, opportunity, and circumstances allow to insure that the City�s resource portfolio is not only economically but environmentally responsible.
Recommendation:
Note and file.
4. MAYOR�S YOUTH TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED YOUTH PROGRAM:
At the request of the Council, staff is providing an update of past youth programs recommended by the Mayor�s Youth Task Force and approved by the Council. In addition, staff is requesting Council authorization to fund and begin implementation of additional Mayor�s Youth Task Force recommended Youth Programs. As proposed, the Mayor�s Youth Task Force recommends the continuation of PeaceBuilders and the Middle School Grant Program, as well as implementing new programs addressing the needs for Youth Communication, a Teen Television Show, Police Youth Relations, and Counseling.
The information contained in this staff report was presented to the Youth Board, Teens In Action Police Youth Relations Committee, and the Teens In Action Media Communication Committee. In addition, the Mayor�s Youth Task Force brought back the original youth members of the Burbank Youth for Youth (BY4Y) committee to provide the City with a scorecard evaluation of the progress in effectively addressing Burbank teen issues. All of the youth involved in these focus groups had the opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions to the proposed projects. Their suggestions were incorporated into the final proposal contained within this staff report. The recommended programs include licensing and continuation of the PeaceBuilders program, extending the Middle School Grant Program, continuing and expanding the Teens In Action Media Communication team and Police Youth Relations team, and expanding the Counseling opportunities available for youth.
PeaceBuilders $5,000 This proposal includes the continuation of the existing implementation as well as the required community licensing fee in order to legally continue the program. This item is time sensitive. If funding is not appropriated for licensing at this time, the existing PeaceBuilders program will not continue.
Middle School Grant Program $75,000 Through constant feedback and communication regarding the Middle School Grant Program, it was determined that these are the necessary costs to continue the program through the end of the 2003-2004 School Year. Without these funds, the programs funded by the Middle School Grants will only continue until the end of the fall semester and the existing program will not be extended.
Communication/ Media $100,000 Teens have expressed that they can relate to utilizing the internet and that a website is easy to update frequently. The teens also feel that print materials are beneficial, as they are the most common form of communication currently. As examples of this, the youth have proposed a Youth Resource Card, Teen Newsletter, and a Teen Community Information Card.
Staff has presented the first episode of the Teen Television Show pilot series and solicited feedback from seven separate focus groups, focusing on the most difficult to reach youth. All of the input will be compiled and implemented in further shows. The youth feel that the show is beneficial to addressing youth issues and should be continued and expanded to include other issues identified from the Youth Solution Summit, and suggestions made by Burbank youth.
Police Youth Relations $25,000 Based on the Youth Solution Summit, the goal of the existing Teens In Action Police Youth Relations Committee is to improve the relationship between police and youth in Burbank, resulting in a safer community. The team proposes to do this through a combination of various programs that target youth and police in Burbank, especially the most difficult to reach youth.
Facilitators $30,000 Professional facilitators from the non-profit organization �We Care for Youth�, Linda Maxwell and Jose Quintanar, have been involved in this process since the beginning. This proposal includes oversight of the completion of specific projects; including the continuation of Teen Street Beat, a basketball game between youth and police, a community-wide picnic, discussion forums on campus led by police, and a police rewards program.
Counseling $50,000 One of the overwhelming needs expressed by youth in our community throughout this process is the need for more accessible counseling opportunities for youth. A complete strategy for implementation will be further developed based on future youth focus groups.
Evaluation Ongoing feedback from youth is essential to the success of this program and achieving the goals set by staff and youth.
The Mayor�s Youth Task Force recommended youth programs are one-time expenditures.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of staff, the Mayor�s Youth Task Force, the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board, Youth Board, Teens In Action Police Youth Relations, Teens In Action Media Communication team, and the original members of Burbank Youth for Youth that the Council approve the one-time expenditure of $285,000 from the Non-Departmental Holding Account for implementation of the Mayor�s Youth Task Force recommended youth programs.
5. PROPOSED ARMORY CONSOLIDATION AND RELOCATION PROJECT UPDATE:
During the Introduction of Additional Agenda Items portion of the May 20, 2003 Council meeting, it was a consensus request of the Council for staff to provide an update regarding the proposed consolidation, relocation and renovation of the Burbank and Glendale National Guard Armories.
As part of the Council adopted 10-Year Strategic Plan, Park, Recreation and Community Services staff was directed to explore the acquisition of the National Guard Armory Site and the expansion of Pacific Park for recreational purposes.
Specifically in Section D, 14 of the 10-Year Strategic Plan, staff is advised to �Identify all potential sites of open space within the City and evaluate their potential use relative to meeting existing recreational needs. This process will also encompass looking at areas of potential land acquisition (i.e. National Guard Armory) to re-use as recreational facilities.� Also in Section D, 23 staff is instructed to �seek expanding Pacific Park to increase recreational facilities.�
In an effort to meet these 10-year strategic goals, staff has initiated dialogue with the City of Glendale, the California National Guard, Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport staff and local legislators. On Wednesday, November 28, 2001 staff from the cities of Burbank and Glendale, including City Managers Ovrom and Starbird, Assembly Member Dario Frommer, Major General Paul Monroe and other representatives from the California National Guard attended a meeting regarding the proposed project. The goal of the meeting, which was arranged by Assembly Member Frommer, was to establish each entity�s interest in pursuing a consolidated National Guard Armory serving both Burbank and Glendale and the relocation of this joint facility to a site at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport.
Subsequent to this initial meeting, staff from the cities of Burbank and Glendale conducted additional staff level meetings, telephone conversations and e-mails with the California National Guard, Airport and legislators in an effort to further refine the proposed consolidation.
During the summer of 2002, two articles concerning the proposed project appeared in local newspapers and a third story was available on the Los Angeles Times website. Staff was also directed by the Council, as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Work Program to continue to �work with the City of Glendale, National Guard and legislators on a proposed Armory Consolidation Project.� During the October 10, 2002 meeting of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board, staff also provided an overview concerning the proposed project. Needless to say, the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board was extremely supportive of the possibility of adding an additional 3.75 acres to the current Pacific Park site.
While total approximate land values are estimated between $16,500,000 and $20,400,000 it is anticipated that both Federal and State funding will become available and necessary for the completion of this project. In addition to land acquisition costs, it is also estimated that several million dollars of, yet to be determined, development costs will also be necessary for the completion of the consolidated armory and the expansion of Pacific Park.
As stated in the Background section of the staff report, the first step in the legislative process for the proposed project is obtaining authorization for the Director of General Services for the State of California to �exchange, lease or transfer specified parcels of State property, including specified armory property.� On September 26, 2002 Senate Bill 1607 was signed by the Governor of California providing the General Services Director with the necessary authorization.
The next step, and perhaps the most difficult step in this entire process, will be the procurement of funding for this project. Ideally, a combination of State, Federal and local funding can be developed which will minimize the direct fiscal impact on the cities of Burbank and Glendale and the California National Guard. As directed by the Council, staff will continue to work with the City of Glendale, the California National Guard and legislators in an effort to develop funding opportunities. Staff has included this item as part of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department�s FY 2003-04 Work Program goals.
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department that the Council note and file this report. It is further recommended that City staff continue to work with the City of Glendale, the California National Guard, and legislators in an effort to secure funding for the consolidation and relocation of the Glendale and Burbank armories and the expansion of Pacific Park.
6. COUNCIL MEMBER CAMPBELL�S REQUEST FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ASSEMBLY BILL 1690:
At the June 10, 2003 Council meeting, Council Member Campbell requested that the matter of Assembly Bill (AB) 1690 (Leno) be placed on the agenda for discussion.
AB 1690 would authorize any city, county, or city and county to form a public safety finance agency for the purposes of supplementing fire protection or police or sheriff services and for financing needed capital improvements for same. Existing law provides that, with the exception of a business license tax, a city, county, city and county, or any other local entity may not impose or collect a local income tax.
AB 1690 would change the existing law by authorizing local government agencies that form a public safety finance agency to levy a local general income tax, if that tax is approved by a majority of the voters voting on that tax at an election. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to administer and collect these local income taxes and require the board to transmit the revenues derived from these taxes within 60 days of collection.
The bill would require that property tax revenue be annually assigned to the public safety finance agency, from the forming local government, in an amount that is equal to 50 percent of the amount of revenues estimated to be collected from the local income tax in the first 12 months of imposition. In addition, the finance agency would be required to annually allocate these revenues according to a specified formula. By imposing new revenue allocation duties upon local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.
Recommendation:
It is staff�s recommendation that the Council initiate discussion on the matter of AB 1690 and direct staff as necessary.
RECONVENE the Redevelopment Agency meeting for public comment.
THIRD PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Three minutes on any matter concerning the business of the City.)
This is the time for the Third Period of Oral Communications. Each speaker will be allowed a maximum of THREE minutes and may speak on any matter concerning the business of the City. However, any speaker that spoke during the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during the Third Period of Oral Communications.
For this segment, a GREEN card must be completed, indicating the matter to be discussed, and presented to the City Clerk.
COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO THE THIRD PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
ADJOURNMENT.
For a copy of the agenda and related staff reports, please visit the City of Burbank�s Web Site: www.ci.burbank.ca.us
|