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.

 

CLOSED SESSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IN COUNCIL CHAMBER:

Comments by the public on Closed Session items only.  These comments will be limited to three minutes.

 

For this segment, a PINK card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk.

 

CLOSED SESSION IN CITY HALL BASEMENT LUNCH ROOM/CONFERENCE ROOM:

 

a.      Conference with Legal Counsel � Existing Litigation:

         Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(a)

1.            Name of Case:  City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

         Case No.:  BC259852

         Brief description and nature of case:  Declaratory Relief.

 

2.      Name of Case:  McMurray et al. v. City of Burbank.

         Case No.:  BC247304

         Brief description and nature of case:  Alleged employment discrimination.

 

b.      Conference with Legal Counsel � Anticipated Litigation (City as potential defendant):

         Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(b)(1)

         Number of potential case(s):  4

 

c.      Conference with Legal Counsel � Anticipated Litigation (City as possible plaintiff):

         Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(c)

         Number of potential case(s):  1

 

                                                                      6:30 P.M.

 

 

INVOCATION:                       Reverend Tania Kleiman, Olive Branch Ministries.

                                                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:             DARK MEETING ON JULY 8, 2003.

 

PRESENTATION:                PLANT-A-TREE DONATION BY CIVIC PRIDE COMMITTEE.

 

PRESENTATION:                LIBRARY BOOKMARK CONTEST WINNERS.

 

PRESENTATION:                BURBANK FIRE DEPARTMENT DISTINGUISHED ACT AWARD FOR FIRE CAPTAIN FRANK

                                               WALBERT.

 

PROCLAMATION:               PARK AND RECREATION MONTH.

 

 

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).

 

 

REPORTING ON CLOSED SESSION:

 

 

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:

 

 

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 1 and 2)

 

The following items may be enacted by one motion.  There will be no separate discussion on these items 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.

 

1.      ACCEPTING THE CIVIC PRIDE COMMITTEE�S DONATION OF PLANT-A-TREE MONIES:

 

The Burbank Civic Pride Committee conducts the annual Plant-a-Tree program by soliciting donations from the public and donating the money collected towards the purchase of ornamental trees to be planted throughout Burbank's parks.  Civic Pride Committee members have worked with staff from the Public Information Office and the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department on the project this year to successfully raise $4,985 in donations.  This money will be used to offset the purchase of ornamental trees to be planted at Johnny Carson Park.  A ceremony was held on March 27, 2003, at Johnny Carson Park, to recognize the donors and present them with certificates. 

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING THE CIVIC PRIDE COMMITTEE�S DONATION OF PLANT-A-TREE MONIES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,985.

 

 

2.      APPROVAL OF TRUST AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF BURBANK VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES� BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION:

 

On November 25, 1997, the Council approved the establishment of the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association (VEBA), an employer-sponsored welfare benefit plan authorized under �501(c)(9) of the Internal Revenue Service Code.  This type of IRS-approved trust allows employees, on a collective basis, to accumulate funds in a pre-tax account for the purpose of paying for retiree medical benefits.

 

Over the last two years, there has been dissatisfaction with the service level provided by the VEBA�s third party administrator, Benefit Strategies Group, and another third party administrator was actively sought.  On June 17, 2003, the Council adopted professional services agreements for VEBA Service Group, LLC, A.W. Rehn & Associates, Inc., and Katten Muchin Zavis Rosenman to perform consulting, administrative, and legal services, respectively, for the City of Burbank Voluntary Employees� Beneficiary Association effective July 1, 2003.

 

At that June 17, 2003 meeting, the Council was notified that in addition to these three agreements, the City was negotiating a new Trust Agreement with Washington Trust Bank and once the agreement was completed it would be placed on a future Council agenda for the Council�s review and approval.

Currently, Arrowhead Trust is providing trustee services for the plan.  The impetus to change trustee companies is based on the recommendation of these new providers.  Their desire to transfer trustee services from Arrowhead Trust to Washington Trust Bank is based on the fact that they have built a prior working relationship with this trustee which will allow them to provide a higher level of service to the plan. In addition, Washington Trust Bank has been providing fiduciary services for employee benefit plans and pensions since 1975 with over $112,000,000 in managed assets, plus over $312,000,000 in non-managed assets.

 

In addition to an annual trustee fee of $300, asset-based fees will be assessed.  Currently, there is approximately $1,300,000 invested in the plan.  At this level, trustee fees would be $3,300 per year.  The trustee fees associated with this plan would be paid by the VEBA Trust. 

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE TRUST AGREEMENT (CITY OF BURBANK WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN) BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND WASHINGTON TRUST BANK.

 

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR           ***            ***            ***

 

 

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

 

3.      GITANA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVOCATION:

 

This report represents step two of the one-step, two-step process requested by the  Council pertaining to revocation of the conditional use permit (CUP) for Gitana, the nightclub/restaurant/sports bar located at 260 East Magnolia Boulevard.  On May 27, 2003, staff provided the Council with a report that contained information on the CUP revocation process in general, and on some of the specific terms of Gitana�s CUP.  The Council directed staff to return with a report from the Police Department outlining the recent history of police activity at Gitana and analyzing the demands placed upon the City�s police services.

 

Per the Council�s direction, the Police Department analyzed all of the police calls to Gitana and the immediate vicinity between October 2002 and May 2003 and evaluated the extent to which the calls were related to the business.  The Police Department determined that a total of 63 police calls for service that were linked to Gitana occurred during the eight-month period.  These calls included incidents such as assaults with a deadly weapon, fights, and driving under the influence.

 

Based upon the frequency and nature of the police calls for service and the number of police officers that are often required to handle the situations, the Police Department determined that the incidents �create a substantial adverse impact on the delivery of police services within the City of Burbank.�  Consequently, the Chief of Police is requesting in his report that the Planning Board conduct a compliance hearing pursuant to the conditions of approval for Gitana�s CUP, to determine if Gitana is creating a substantial adverse impact on police services to the detriment of public health and safety and in violation of the conditions of approval.

 

Although the Council has the authority to directly initiate revocation proceedings, staff recommends the Council direct staff to hold a compliance hearing before the Planning Board prior to scheduling a revocation hearing before the Council.  Gitana�s conditions of approval contain a specific requirement that the Chief of Police hold a compliance hearing before the Planning Board as an additional step in the revocation process.  If the Council votes to initiate revocation proceedings, the Planning Board would essentially be acting as a recommending body.  Although the original intent of the conditions of approval was for the Planning Board to first review the history of police activity at the request of the Chief of Police, the Council has now been presented with the information and has the authority to direct staff based upon that information.

 

Nonetheless, staff recommends that this additional step with the Planning Board be completed to ensure compliance with the intent of the conditions of approval.  Following the compliance hearing, the Planning Board and/or the Council may determine that Gitana has not complied with the conditions of approval and may set the matter for a revocation hearing.

 

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends the Council direct staff to schedule a compliance hearing before the Planning Board with the Chief of Police.  If the Planning Board and/or Council finds that a revocation hearing should occur based upon the determination of the Planning Board compliance hearing, staff would recommend proceeding with scheduling a revocation hearing before the Council.

 

 

4.      COUNCIL MEMBER GOLONSKI�S REQUEST TO DISCUSS FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT:

 

During the Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-04 Budget Adoption at the June 17, 2003 Council meeting, Council Member Golonski suggested that a discussion amongst the Council and the School Board of the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) be considered to ascertain the feasibility of the City providing the District with  financial support for the 2003-04  school year.

 

With the Council and School Board scheduled to conduct a joint meeting on July 16, 2003, the Council requested a preliminary discussion to formulate ideas and determine the feasibility of providing financial support to the BUSD.

  

As a result of the Council discussion on this matter at the June 17, 2003 Council meeting, staff was directed to return with an informational report in advance of the July 16, 2003 Joint City Council/School Board meeting.  Since the Council will be dark on July 8, 2003, staff agendized this issue for Council consideration at the first meeting in July, and has provided the Council with information that will assist them in the discussion regarding potential financial assistance to the BUSD.

 

The City has always made it a high priority to assist the BUSD.  The Council understands the importance of the public schools as they relate to enhancing the overall quality and desirability of the City.  This partnership with the BUSD has been very successful over the years, and has resulted in tremendous benefit to the community, and especially the children.

 

However, as much as staff supports its partnership and is continually desirous of the City�s support to the BUSD, now is not a time when the City should be considering more financial assistance.  Burbank is having its own financial issues and staff is still uncertain about how much the State will take from the City and more important whether this reduction to the revenues will be temporary or permanent as has been suggested by the Legislature.

 

As staff approached the FY 2003-04 budget, every attempt was made to make minimal impacts to existing programs to avoid harming the service levels desired by Burbank residents.  This philosophy was also extended to the existing partnerships with the schools.  The City will maintain its partnerships with the BUSD, they are successful and staff wants them to continue thriving.  There are still opportunities for the District to seek additional financial assistance next year through the Youth Endowment Services Fund, Positive Alternatives for Youth Grants, Perform Art Grants and Community Development Block Grants for those eligible schools.  Although the funding has been reduced in some areas, there will still be dollars available for grants. In addition, with the era of financial challenges that both the City and the District are facing in future years, there may be need to explore other joint ventures.  There are many projects that the BUSD and City could do together, including joint purchasing, consolidation of warehouses, fleet maintenance, etc.  Staff is seeking direction to open the dialogue with the District regarding creative brainstorming and formulation of plans that will enable both parties to benefit from joint ventures.  Many of these potential ventures have the ability to save both parties significant recurring dollars.      

 

Recommendation:

 

It is staff�s recommendation that the Council not provide any further financial assistance to the BUSD above and beyond what the City is already committed to doing in partnership with the District for FY 2003-04.  Staff is open to and supportive of Council direction to work cooperatively with the BUSD on other possible cost saving ventures.

 

 

5.      BURBANK WATER AND POWER WATER AND ELECTRIC MONTHLY OPERATION REPORT:

 

Staff has prepared the Burbank Water and Power Water and Electric Monthly Report regarding water quality and power issues for June 2003.

 

         WATER UPDATE

 

�        Water quality during May met or exceeded State and Federal drinking water standards.

�        Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Year-To-Date preliminary Water Fund Financial Results as of May 31, 2003.

 

$ in 000�s ( ) = unfavorable	Year-To-Date Actual	Year-To-Date Budget	Variance
CCF	8,439,813	8,589,487	( 149,674)
Total Revenues	$      14,389	$     13,767	$       622
Total Operating Expenses	12,634	13,562	928
Operating Income/(Loss)	$        1,755	$          205	$    1,550

 

         ELECTRIC UPDATE

 

The following table shows the systemwide reliability statistics for FY 2001-02 compared to the first eleven months of FY 2002-03.

 

Reliability Measure	Fiscal Year 2001-02	Fiscal Year 2002-03, July 1 to May 31
Average Outages Per Year	0.2564	0.1626
Average Outage Duration	57.93 minutes	91.11 minutes
Average Service Availability	99.9943%	99.9969%

        

         Financial and Operations Update

 

�        FY 2002-03 year-to-date preliminary Power Financial Results as of May 31, 2003.

 

$ in 000�s ( ) = unfavorable	Year-To-Date Actual	Year-To-Date Budget	Variance
MWh	956,850	1,028,546	(71,696)
Total Revenue	$ 195,998	$ 148,598	$   47,400
Total Operating Expenses(a)	181,580	144,562	(37,018)
Operating Income/(Loss)	$   14,418	$     4,036	$   10,382
Retail Revenue	$  118,422	$ 131,524	$ (13,102)
Wholesale Revenue	76,669	16,165	60,504
Other Revenue(b)	907	909	(2)
Total Revenue	$  195,998	$ 148,598	$  47,400

 

    ^(a) Includes in-lieu

    ^(b) Transmission and Telecom sales

 

         May 2003 Unit Data

 

Unit	Availability	Operating Hours	MWh Net	NOx, lbs.
M-5	100%	19:07	263.9	-
L-1	100%	123:45	5223	1077.5
O-1	0%	0	0	0
O-2	0%	0	0	0
O-3	100%	18:02	90.9	-
O-4	100%	8:48	41.5	-

 

Recommendation:

 

Note and file.

 

 

6.      ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

 

The Council has asked for a report on Oral Communications with options for changing the current procedure. 

 

The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code �54950 et seq.) provides that the public has a right to address the Council on any matter on the agenda of the Council before action is taken on that item (Government Code �54954.3), and to also address the Council on any subject within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council, that is, on subjects for which the Council has some ability to take action (Government Code �54954.3).   Implementing this provision has been a matter of much discussion and various changes over the years in the City. 

 

In the most recent action on June 12, 2001, the Council established four (4) periods of Oral Communications as follows:

1. The first period of Oral Communications precedes Closed Sessions, and is limited to 3 minutes per speaker on Closed Session agenda items only.

2. The second period of Oral Communications is on the open session and allows speakers to address any matter which falls within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council.  This period is limited to 1 minute.

3. The third period of Oral Communications immediately follows the second, and allows speakers to speak only to action items on the agenda for that meeting.  This period is limited to 4 minutes.

4. The fourth, and last period of Oral Communications, is at the end of the meeting, and also allows the public to speak on any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council.  During this period of Oral Communications, the speakers may speak for 3 minutes, but those who have chosen to speak during the second, 1-minute period of Oral Communications may not speak during this period.

The possible options are many and varied.  The following is an attempt to list some of the more obvious.

1. Leave the Oral Communications as presently established.

2. Change the 1-minute period of Oral Communications to 2 minutes (with the current subject and speaker limitations).

3. Change the 1-minute period of Oral Communications to 2 minutes and the last 3- minute period to 2 minutes (also with the current subject and speaker limitations).

4. Drop the 1-minute period of Oral Communications and leave the other time and subject limitations as they are currently.

5. Drop the 1-minute period of Oral Communications and expand the 4-minute period to 5 minutes, but retain the subject limitations.

6. Drop the 1-minute period of Oral Communications, expand the 4-minute period to 5 minutes, and open it up to any subject within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council (no longer limited to just agenda items).

7. Drop the 1-minute period of Oral Communications, expand the 4-minute period to 5 minutes, open it up to any subject within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council (no longer limited to just agenda items), and delete the last period of Oral Communications.

8. Change the 1-minute period of Oral Communications to 3 minutes, the 4-minute period to 3 minutes and the last 3-minute period to 2 minutes, all with the same subject and speaker limitations.

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends these options be discussed and direction provided.  If the Council desires to change the current procedure, staff will bring back a resolution to implement that change.

7.      PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT:

 

The process to amend the airport Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) is to have each Party agree in writing to the amended terms, which requires approval of each respective City Council.

Should the member cities desire to consider language that would provide for the staggering of terms, it would be necessary to amend the language in Section 2.2 of the current JPA, and an initial shorter period will need to be designated for some of each parties� appointees in order to create a staggered term.

 

The Council might want to consider the following proposed amendment to this section:

 

�Members of the Commission shall generally serve for four (4) year terms, except that for the terms commencing June 1, 2005, the cities of Glendale and Pasadena shall each appoint one (1) member to the Commission for a  two (2) year term and two (2) members to the Commission for a  four (4) year term, and the City of Burbank shall appoint two (2) members to the Commission for a two (2) year term and one (1) member to the Commission for a four (4) year term, all with subsequent terms to commence on June 1 of each fourth (4^th) year thereafter.  Although the terms continue, the service of an individual Commissioner may be terminated as provided below.  Each member shall serve as a member of the Commission in such member�s individual capacity.� 

 

By the City of Burbank taking the two initially shorter terms, a message will be conveyed to the other cities that Burbank is really trying to do what is right, and not trying to obtain some kind of hidden advantage.

 

The Council also asked to consider the rotation of officers.  Since the formation of the JPA, the Airport Authority has had eight (8) presidents:

 

Leland Ayers, Burbank         July 1977 � January, 1978

Bill Rudell, Burbank               January, 1978 � July, 1984

Bob Garcin, Glendale           July, 1984 � July, 1994

Brian Bowman, Burbank      July, 1994 � May, 1995

Carl Raggio, Glendale          May, 1995 � July, 1996

Joyce Streater, Pasadena   July, 1996 � July, 1999

Carl Messeck, Glendale       July, 1999 � July, 2001

Chris Holden, Pasadena      July, 2001 - Present

 

In relation to the rotation of officers, language could be added to Section 2.4.1 of the JPA to read as follows:

 

�At least once in every five (5) year period the offices of President, Vice President and Secretary shall each be held by Commissioners appointed by each of the three member cities, so that each city shall have an opportunity to have its appointees serve in each of the offices.�

 

Once the Council determines which, if any, amendments it would wish added to the JPA, it should formally adopt the changes and then approach the other member cities in a variety of ways:

1. Send a written document to the respective mayors with a request that it be placed on the agenda for consideration.  This should probably be accompanied by an explanatory letter.

2. Send a delegation of one or two Council members to meet with one or two Council members of the other cities explaining the proposal and asking that it be placed on the agenda for consideration.

3. Send the Mayor and Vice-Mayor to meet with their counterparts in the other two cities explaining the proposal and asking that it be placed on the agenda for consideration.

4. Set a joint meeting of the three cities to introduce the issue and request that they return and consider it further in their own meetings.

5. Send the City Manager to visit with her counterparts in the other two cities, explain the issue and ask that it be placed on the agenda for consideration.

It might seem best to call a full joint meeting, but the practicality is that we often do not get a full turnout from the cities.  It would probably work better for the Council to either send the Mayor and Vice Mayor, the ad hoc Airport Subcommittee, or two other Council members to meet with members of the Glendale and Pasadena City Councils with a request that this matter be placed on their agenda for full consideration.

 

As an alternative, and before the Council settles on any specific amendments, the Council might wish to invite the other two cities to appoint representatives to a joint ad hoc committee to review the JPA and come up with amendments to propose to the three cities.  Certainly the other cities (and perhaps the Airport Authority) might have amendments that they would like to propose, and we could suggest a one-time review.  The resultant amendments would then not be viewed as just Burbank sponsored but have the approval of the joint committee.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the Council appoint its own representatives and invite Glendale and Pasadena to also appoint representatives to attend a joint ad hoc JPA review committee to meet in the future at a time and place certain.

 

 

8.      MAYOR MURPHY�S REQUEST TO PLACE THE MATTER OF PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMS ON TRAFFIC ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES:

 

At the June 17, 2003 Council meeting, Mayor Murphy requested to place the matter of public education programs regarding traffic on the Council agenda for discussion purposes.  This is the first step in the one-step, two-step process by which the Council can vote by majority to direct staff to perform additional work on this matter.

 

At this time staff has performed no additional work on the issue pending Council majority direction. However, previous public education efforts have been documented and a summary list has been attached to the staff report.

Recommendation:

 

It is staff�s recommendation that the Council review the summary of public education efforts on traffic issues, initiate discussion on this matter, and direct staff as necessary.

 

 

9.      ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT 2001-11: CHANGES TO BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATIONS FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES: PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATIONS, PROCESSING, PUBLIC NOTICE AND APPEAL:

 

The purpose of this report is to recommend adopting Zone Text Amendment No. 2001-11 as an urgency measure.

 

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.  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 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 feet (ft) of the proposed unit, and procedures and rules for appeals of the Director�s decision to the Planning Board and City Council.

 

Ordinance No. 3622 becomes effective on June 28, 2003.  The subject proposed Ordinance, if adopted using ordinary procedures for introducing, adopting and publishing Council Ordinances, will not go into effect until August 6, 2003.  This means there would be a period from June 28 to August 6, 2003, during which time a CUP would not be required for a second dwelling unit, but during which time there would not be any other officially-adopted procedures for accepting, processing, noticing and appealing such applications either. 

 

To avoid unnecessary confusion, delays and expenditure of staff time and resources, staff is recommending this amendment be adopted as an urgency ordinance so that it will go into effect immediately upon its adoption.  Adoption of an urgency measure requires an affirmative vote by 4/5 of the Council.

 

Recommendation:

 

1. Introduction and adoption of proposed ordinance entitled:

AN URGENCY 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.