|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Ramos, Vander Borght and Murphy. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Member Golonski. |
|
Also Present - |
Ms. Alvord, City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs. Wilson,
Deputy City Clerk.
|
|
Oral
Communications |
There was no response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral communications on
Closed Session matters at this time.
|
|
4:36 P.M.
Recess |
The Council recessed at this time to the City Hall Basement Lunch
Room/Conference Room to hold a Closed Session on the following:
|
|
|
a. Conference with Legal Counsel � Existing Litigation:
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(a)
Name of Case: Deborah 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
possible plaintiff):
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(c)
Number of potential case(s): 1
|
|
|
c. Conference with Legal Counsel � Anticipated Litigation (City as
potential defendant):
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(b)(1)
Number of potential case(s): 2
|
|
|
d. Conference
with Labor Negotiator:
Pursuant to Govt.
Code �54957.6
Name of the
Agency Negotiator: Management Services Director/Judie Sarquiz.
Name of
Organization Representing Employee:
Represented:
Burbank City Employees Association, Burbank Management Association, and
Burbank Firefighters Association.
Summary of Labor
Issues to be Negotiated:
Current Contracts and Retirement Issues.
|
|
Regular Meeting
Reconvened in
Council Chambers |
The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Burbank was reconvened
at 6:52 p.m. by Ms. Murphy, Mayor.
|
|
Invocation
|
The invocation was given by Chaplain Jon Arnold.
|
|
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL |
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Sara Kelly, Bret Harte
Elementary School.
|
|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Golonski, Ramos, Vander Borght and Murphy. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Members None. |
|
Also Present - |
Ms. Alvord, City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs. Campos,
City Clerk.
|
|
301-1
Centennial of
Flight |
Mayor Murphy presented a proclamation in honor of the 50th
Anniversary of the Dedication of the Portal of the Folded Wing-Shrine to
Aviation to Ron Dickson, Gil Cefaratt and John Torres.
|
|
301-1
Donations to the
Fire Dept. |
Fire Chief Davis received a donation from State Farm Insurance Company to
benefit the Disaster Preparedness Division of the Fire Department. He
introduced Mr. Baenen, Disaster Preparedness Coordinator, who described
the Community Disaster Volunteer Program and expressed appreciation to
State Farm Insurance Company for the donation. John Wheatley,
representing State Farm Insurance Company, also introduced Kirk Farrel, a
Burbank State Farm Insurance agent, who briefly described the Good
Neighbor Citizenship Program through which State Farm Insurance Company
commits resources to: help raise the level of achievement of Teachers and
Students; make homes and highways safe; and, build strong communities. A
check in the amount of $25,000 was presented to Mayor Murphy and Chief
Davis.
Next, Chief Davis recognized Ron Phillips, representing Der
Weinerschnitzel, who donated $1,000 to the Burbank and Warner Bros. Fire
Departments for their participation in a recent chili tug-of-war contest
in celebration of national chili month. Pursuant to the wishes of both
fire departments, the donation was presented to the Burbank Center for the
Retarded. Rachel Galperin accepted the donation on behalf of the Burbank
Center for the Retarded and expressed appreciation to both fire
departments and Der Weinerschnitzel. Also, Doris Vick and Barbara
Freedman, on behalf of 29 residents on Country Club Drive,
presented a check in the amount of $1,500 in appreciation of the efforts
of the Fire Department in battling a hillside fire on
October 21, 2003.
Pursuant to the wishes of the Fire Department, the money will benefit the
Children�s Burn Foundation.
|
|
301-1
Civic Pride
Committee�s
Holiday
Decorating
Contest Winners |
Ellie Meyer, Chairperson, and Linda Silva, member, of the Burbank Civic
Pride Committee, presented Certificates of Recognition to the winners of
the 21st annual Civic Pride Committee�s Holiday Decorating
Contest and expressed appreciation to all contestants. Mayor Murphy
presented the certificates to the winners in the following categories:
residential category, Daniel and Aurora Garoian of 1075 East Harvard
Road, Louis and Belinda McTague of 425 Amherst Drive, Michael Zankoski of
1822 North Buena Vista Street, and Brian Smith of 841 North Buena Vista
Street; youth category for ages 16 and under, Ryan and Sarah Kelly of 1231
North Fairview Street and Ilona and Alexander Szabo of 1636 North Avon
Street; and, commercial category, Samuel's Florist at 921 West Olive
Avenue. Special acknowledgement was also given to the Starlight Hills
Committee for their neighborhood decorations on Trudi Lane,
Lamer Street
and
Keystone Street
above
Scott Road.
|
|
Reporting on
Council Liaison
Committees
|
Mr. Vander Borght reported on the AMC Phase II subcommittee meeting and on
a meeting he and Mr. Golonski attended with the Burbank Airport Hilton
Hotel representatives to renegotiate the Hilton Participant Note.
|
|
Reporting on
Closed Session |
Mr. Barlow reported on the items considered by the City Council during the
Closed Session meetings.
|
|
Initial Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications |
Ms. Murphy called for speakers for the initial open public comment period
of oral communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were
Jasbir Bhasine, commenting on Code requirements for remodeling and
requesting that one building inspector be assigned to a project; Edward
Guerrero, stating he would not comment on Police Officers� misconduct due
to the holiday season; Caroline Hamilton, from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, introducing herself and distributing information
packets on the agency; Mark Barton, commenting on the uniqueness of the
City Hall building; and, Esther Espinoza, on admission standards for
Police Officers.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Agenda Item
Oral Communications |
Ms. Murphy called for speakers for the agenda item oral communications at
this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were
Christine McLeod, representing Southern California Edison, commenting on
the engine idling report, requesting that utilities be exempt from any
proposed ordinance, and distributing literature on Southern California
Edison; C.L. Stack, in opposition to the renaming of the Airport and to
taxpayers� money being used to fund the cost of the name change; Mark
Barton, commenting on the criteria for a design review committee; Susan
Bowers, Executive Director of the Burbank Chamber of Commerce, in
opposition to increasing the Transient Parking Tax; Howard Rothenbach, in
opposition to increasing the Transient Parking Tax and the extension of
the redevelopment project areas; and, David Piroli, commenting on the
Graciela Hotel Planned Development amendments, expressing concern
regarding engine idling and in opposition to the establishment of a
checking account to pay litigation-related expenses.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Jt. Mtg. w/
Redevelopment
Agency
1103
1104
1105
1108
Extend Plan
Limits of the
Golden State,
City Centre,
West Olive and
S. San Fernando
Project Areas |
Mrs. Frausto, Senior Redevelopment Project Manager, Community Development
Department, requested the Council authorize extending the plan
effectiveness date and the date to use tax increment to repay debt for the
Redevelopment Agency�s (Agency) four project areas,
Golden
State, City Centre, West Olive and
South San Fernando
by one year. She stated that these amendments are statutorily allowed by
Senate Bill (SB) 1045 which requires redevelopment agencies to make an
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) payment to the
County
Auditor for Fiscal Year 2003-04. For the Agency, she reported that the
amount is approximately $1.34 million which must be paid on or before
May 10, 2004.
She further explained that SB 1045 authorizes the legislative body to
amend the redevelopment plans to extend the time limit of the
effectiveness of the plan and the time limit to repay indebtedness by one
year, for a redevelopment agency required to make an ERAF payment.
Mrs. Frausto also requested the Council affirm the existing indebtedness.
She stated that staff has undertaken a review of the Agency�s various debt
obligations to ensure that the Agency maintains sufficient debt
obligations in order to collect all the tax increment allowed over the
term of each project area. She noted that this was particularly important
for the
Golden
State and City Center Redevelopment Project Areas which currently cannot
incur additional debt beyond 2004 without amending the plan for each
project area. She also noted staff�s finding that it was not in the
Agency�s best interest to initiate amending the project area plans at this
time to extend the time limit to incur debt, pursuant to SB 211, since the
extension would trigger new statutory pass through payments. Instead, she
stated that staff proposed to reaffirm existing debt and documents to
secure debt appropriately. She explained that two of such debts are the
Youth Endowment Services (YES) Fund and the Administrative Agreement
between the Agency and the City. She stated that staff proposes that the
YES Fund obligation be in the form of a promissory note, and that the
Administrative Agreement be modified to establish a specific termination
date based on the life of each project area. Also, she added that an
additional debt obligation is recommended to fund public infrastructure
projects, if and when, tax increment funds become available beyond the
debt obligations already identified. She informed the Council that there
was no deadline to utilize the SB 211 plan amendments, therefore, the
Agency reserves the right to review this matter periodically.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Vander Borght that �the
following ordinances be introduced and read for the first time by title
only and be passed to the second reading and that the following
resolutions be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1108
Extend Time
Limits for S.
San Fernando
Redev. Project |
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK EXTENDING THE TIME
LIMITS ON THE LIFE OF THE SOUTH SAN FERNANDO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE TIME LIMITS TO COLLECT TAX INCREMENT FROM THE
SOUTH SAN FERNANDO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE
PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS.
|
|
1103
Extend Time
Limits for City
Centre Redev.
Project |
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK EXTENDING THE TIME
LIMITS ON THE LIFE OF THE CITY CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE TIME LIMITS TO COLLECT TAX INCREMENT FROM THE
CITY CENTRE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PAYMENT
OF INDEBTEDNESS.
|
|
1104
Extend Time
Limits for Golden
State Redev.
Project |
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK EXTENDING THE TIME
LIMITS ON THE LIFE OF THE GOLDEN STATE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE TIME LIMITS TO COLLECT TAX INCREMENT FROM THE
GOLDEN STATE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PAYMENT OF INDEBTEDNESS.
|
|
1105
Extend Time
Limits for
W. Olive Redev.
Project |
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK EXTENDING THE TIME
LIMITS ON THE LIFE OF THE WEST OLIVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE TIME LIMITS TO COLLECT TAX INCREMENT FROM THE
WEST OLIVE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE PAYMENT
OF INDEBTEDNESS.
|
|
1103
1104
1105
1108
Affirming Redev.
Debt |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,623:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AFFIRMING EXISTING
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEBT AND AMENDING AND ESTABLISHING CERTAIN OTHER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DEBT TO THE CITY.
|
|
Redev. Agency
Reso. Adopted |
Redevelopment Agency Resolution No. R-2092 Affirming Existing Agency Debt
and Amending and Establishing Certain other Agency Debt to the City of
Burbank was adopted.
|
|
Adopted |
The ordinances were introduced and the resolutions were adopted by the
following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Ramos, Vander
Borght and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
8:20 P.M.
Recess |
The Council recessed to permit the Redevelopment Agency, Housing
Authority, Parking Authority and Youth Endowment Services Fund Board to
hold their meetings. The Council reconvened at 8:22 p.m. with all members
present.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mrs. Ramos and seconded by Mr. Golonski that "the
following items on the consent calendar be approved as recommended.�
|
|
104-1
Destruction of
Records (Records Dept.) |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,624:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING DESTRUCTION
OF CERTAIN RECORDS IN THE CUSTODY OF RECORDS CENTER DEPARTMENT.
|
|
104-1
Destruction of
Records (Various
Depts.) |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,625:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING DESTRUCTION
OF CERTAIN RECORDS IN THE CUSTODY OF VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS.
|
|
802-4
1102
Redev. Agency�s
Annual Report |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,626:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ACCEPTING AND
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY�S ANNUAL REPORT OF
FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS TO THE STATE CONTROLLER.
|
|
804-1
Adjustment to
the Development
Impact Fee and
Nexus Study |
A report was received from the Community Development Department, providing
the Council with the opportunity to review the annual adjustment to the
Development Impact Fee Schedule and serving as an update on the status of
the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study currently being conducted. The
report stated that in March 1993, the Council adopted the Development
Impact Fee Ordinance (No. 3340-Chapter 31, Article 22 of the Burbank
Municipal Code (BMC)) to ensure that the growth needed to support a vital
economy would not jeopardize the quality of the community�s services. It
was further stated that the Ordinance requires that the fees be adjusted
annually by a percentage equal to the inflation rate for the prior year
for construction costs as determined by the Building Official on December
1 of each calendar year. The report also stated that the guidelines for
determining the construction cost rate adjustment are established by the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index and that the November 3,
2003 Engineering News Record had a Cost of Construction Index reflecting a
3.3 percent increase in the Los Angeles area. Therefore, staff intended
to increase the existing fee schedule for both the transportation and
community facility fees by 3.3 percent effective January 16, 2004, 31 days
after adoption. Staff anticipated an increase in Development Impact Fee
revenues for the calendar year 2004 assuming construction in 2004
maintains the current pace.
The report further stated that during the December 2002 annual adjustment,
staff indicated to the Council, that a Nexus Study would be conducted to
review and update the existing fee structure to reflect current economic
and growth projections (non-transportation). The Council approved the
study request in September 2003, and since that time staff has been
working to finalize the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which defines
the projects to which the fees apply.
The report also stated that future phases of the study will include
finalizing new fee levels and analyzing those fees by conducting a
cost-burden analysis to ensure that the market will support a new fee
structure without negatively affecting development activity. When these
tasks are completed, staff would solicit input from the public and the
development community. Staff also indicated that a Planning Board hearing
was anticipated for February 2004 and in March 2004 the Council would
review and consider adopting the revised fee structure. Although the
proposed Development Impact Fee adjustment would be re-evaluated in early
2004 after completion of the Nexus Study, staff indicated that the BMC
mandates that these fees be adjusted at this time.
The Council noted and filed the report.
|
|
804-3
801-2
State Homeland
Security Grant |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,627:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE
ACCEPTANCE OF A $308,190.27 FY 03-PART 2 STATE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT
PROGRAM AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-04 BUDGET, BY APPROPRIATING
FUNDS.
|
|
802-4
Submission of
the 2002-03
CAFR |
A report was received from the
Financial Services Department presenting the results of the annual audit
of the City and its component units, formally published in the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Statement (CAFR). Staff reported that this
is the second year that the City has reported the annual financial results
under the new reporting model required by the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board Statement No. 34 (GASB 34), Basic Financial Statements and
Management�s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) for State and Local
Governments.
The Council was informed that the CAFR will be submitted for a national
achievement award to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA).
The award is valid for a one-year period and the City has received this
award for 19 consecutive years. Staff indicated that the report will
continue to conform to the standards established by this award program and
that the CAFR would be sent out to numerous financial institutions in
order to comply with various financial and subsequent bond disclosure
requirements.
The Council noted and filed the report.
|
|
208
Establish a
Checking Account for City
Attorney�s Office |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,628:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHECKING ACCOUNT FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY�S OFFICE TO PAY
LITIGATION-RELATED EXPENSES.
|
|
304-1
Donation from
State Farm Ins.
Company |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,629:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING FISCAL YEAR
2003-2004 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING STATE FARM INSURANCE
COMPANIES� GOOD NEIGHBOR CITIZENSHIP PROGRAM DONATION OF $25,000.
|
|
Adopted |
The consent calendar was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Ramos, Vander
Borght and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
1702
AB 1160
Regarding Second Dwelling
Units |
Mr. Bowler, Assistant
Planner, Community Development Department, requested that the Council
adopt a resolution expressing the City�s opposition to Assembly Bill (AB)
1160. He explained that AB 1160 would make certain changes to State law
concerning second dwelling units and other changes to housing law which
staff anticipates would negatively impact the City�s ability to regulate
second dwelling units. He noted that the greatest concerns included: that
the City would no longer be allowed to require that occupants of second
dwelling units be owner occupants; second units of up to 1,200 square feet
would have to be allowed; the City�s current parking requirements would
have to be reduced to require no more than one parking space per two
bedrooms; and, the parking requirements could be fulfilled through the use
of tandem, setback and on-street parking.
Mr. Bowler informed the
Council that staff was introducing the resolution at the request of the
League of California Cities and Ken Emmanuels, Burbank�s Legislative
Analyst. He noted that AB 1160 represents a significant intrusion by the
State into an area of regulation that has been reserved for local
jurisdictions. He also distributed an update on the status of AB 1160.
Ms. Murphy inquired as to
who sponsored AB 1160 and Mr. Bowler responded that the Bill was sponsored
by the California Association of Realtors. She requested that staff
contact the Burbank Board of Realtors to solicit support for letters in
opposition to AB 1160.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mrs. Ramos
and seconded by Mr. Campbell that �the following resolution be passed and
adopted:�
|
|
1702
Opposing AB
1160 Regarding Second Dwelling
Units |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,630:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BURBANK EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO ASSEMBLY BILL 1160
(STEINBERG).
|
|
Adopted
|
The resolution was adopted
by the following vote:
Ayes: Council
Members Campbell, Golonski, Ramos,
Vander Borght and Murphy.
Noes: Council
Members None.
Absent: Council
Members None.
|
|
1600
Regulation of
Engine Idling
Activities |
Mr. Ochsenbein, Senior
Planner, Community Development Department, reported that at the October
14, 2003 meeting, staff presented a report on the City�s regulation of
loading and unloading activities in response to concerns regarding the
impact of idling engines during deliveries. At that meeting, he stated
that staff was directed to return with a report detailing ways in which
the City could address the issue of an idling truck or noise generating
vehicle in a residentially-adjacent commercial or industrial zone,
including recommendations on how to address issues specifically related to
noise, pollution, light, and glare within current Code parameters. He
added that a report presented to the Council presents a summary of air
quality regulations, the causes and effects of idling activities, and some
of the regulatory and technological solutions available to address these
issues.
Mr. Ochsenbein informed the
Council that the City can regulate business activities either through
conditions of approval for projects requiring discretionary review or
Municipal Code standards. He stated that the City has the ability to
impose design or operational conditions of approval to ensure that a
project will be compatible with surrounding properties. He added that
business activities that have the potential for spillover impacts on
residential properties are generally regulated through either the Zoning
or Environmental Protection Codes. He further explained that the Zoning
Code establishes use restrictions, operational criteria, and design
standards for uses, such as the Residential Adjacent Commercial Industrial
(RACI) Ordinance adopted to address issues when there exists an interface
between a commercial, residential and industrial use. He stated that
zoning ordinances are particularly useful for new uses or development.
Mr. Ochsenbein also stated
that the Environmental Protection Code regulates environmental quality
issues and includes Environmental Impact Report standards, processing
Negative Declarations, and the Noise Ordinance which regulates and
establishes uses between particular times and the noise levels based on
proximity to sensitive receptors, such as residential uses or schools. He
noted the enforcement challenge based on the Noise Ordinance since most of
the standards with regard to nuisances are based on the concept of a
reasonable person. Regarding idling, he stated that the noise standards
are different depending on the time of the day.
Mr. Ochsenbein further
stated that the options available to the City include: Zoning Ordinance
options such as modifying the RACI to change hours during which deliveries
are currently allowed, noting that the residentially-adjacent late-night
hours are currently defined as midnight to 6:00 a.m. while the Noise
Ordinance establishes night-time hours as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.;
establishing design criteria such as screening and location requirements
for loading and unloading facilities; prohibiting loading from alleys,
cautioning that it could impact traffic and present aesthetic issues;
establishing equipment requirements; and, outright limitation or
prohibition of idling.
Mr. Ochsenbein also noted
that other Code options could include modifying the Noise Ordinance to be
consistent with the residentially-adjacent standards and adopting an
anti-idling ordinance similar to that of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District with provisions limiting idling for commercial
vehicles and refrigeration units. He noted that the City Attorney�s Office
expressed concern regarding the legality of this ordinance and clarified
that utilities would be exempt from the ordinance.
Mr. Ochsenbein stated that
should the Council consider adopting an ordinance, staff recommends
direction on the appropriate course of action with consideration of the
following issues: applicability of new regulations to existing uses;
specific nature and scope of problem to be solved; the regulatory actions
of the State and Federal government; enforcement issues; and, economic
considerations.
Mr. Campbell inquired whether Placer County�s idling ordinance has been
challenged and Mr. Ochsenbein responded that he was not aware of any
challenges to the ordinance. Mr. Campbell also inquired as to how Placer
County interpreted the Health and Safety Code to determine the authority
to regulate idling. Mr. Barlow, City Attorney, noted his disagreement
with their interpretation and stated that if it was the Council�s desire
to pursue an ordinance, staff recommended obtaining an Attorney General
opinion to determine the City�s ability to regulate this matter.
Mrs. Ramos noted receipt of
complaints from the community regarding idling in alleys in
residentially-adjacent commercial areas and idling school buses at John
Burroughs High School. She suggested modifying the Noise Ordinance hours
of operation and consideration of prohibiting loading and unloading in
alleys in residentially-adjacent commercial areas.
Mr. Campbell expressed
support for pursuing an Attorney General opinion in order to consider all
options before any actions are taken. He also stated that utility and
emergency service vehicles should be exempt from the ordinance.
Mr. Vander Borght also
expressed support for an Attorney General opinion to clarify the City�s
ability to regulate idling but suggested addressing the citizens�
complaints as stated by Mrs. Ramos in the meantime through the Noise
Ordinance.
Mr. Campbell concurred with
Mr. Vander Borght�s suggestion and noted that there was a State control
measure which was effective July 2003, prohibiting school bus idling for
more than 30 seconds. He suggested that staff share the information with
the Burbank Unified School District.
The Council gave direction as follows: 1) that the City Attorney obtain an
Attorney General opinion on the applicability of Health and Safety Code
Section 40000 to potential anti-idling ordinances; 2) that staff work with
the Burbank Unified School District on the issue of idling at
John-Burroughs High School and review any State regulations regarding
idling school buses; 3) that staff develop a Zone Text Amendment to modify
the residentially-adjacent standards definition of late-night hours
(midnight to 6:00 a.m.) to be consistent with the night-time hours
definition in the Noise Ordinance (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.); and, 4) that
staff consider the possibility of limiting loading and unloading
activities in residentially-adjacent alleys.
|
|
1502
Draft 2004
Regional
Transportation
Plan |
Mr. Herrmann, Assistant Community Development Director/Transportation,
reported that the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
has released the Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) for public
comment. He explained that the RTP is updated every three years and is
intended to serve as a long-range blueprint for transportation investment
and development and is required to demonstrate air quality conformance
within the six-county SCAG region. He also stated that staff submitted a
draft comment letter for Council review, approval and direction for
submission to SCAG prior to the January 16, 2003 comment period deadline.
He stated that the RTP proposes several strategies and programs to address
the Region�s transportation needs, including: System Management,
consisting of measures intended to maximize the return and effectiveness
of transportation investments such as maintenance, preservation and
operational improvements that increase traffic efficiency and performance;
Transportation Demand Management, consisting of a variety of measures
intended to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles, such as car and
vanpooling, telecommuting, decreasing discretionary trips, spreading
demand to non-peak periods and the use of non-motorized transportation;
and, System Expansion/Capital Investments, consisting of
capacity-enhancing improvements to all modes of the transportation system
that are deemed critical to maintaining and improving mobility,
accessibility and air quality, including the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev)
system.
Mr. Herrmann explained that the Maglev system is a vital component of
SCAG�s Preferred Aviation Plan with its Union Station to Palmdale Corridor
going through Burbank. He informed the Council that the Maglev system is
estimated to cost $20 billion and noted that the RTP generally assumes: an
increased demand at the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport; an independent
entity to oversee the facility developments to accommodate the increased
demand; developing an additional three remote gates at the Airport and
spreading additional flights throughout the day; a constitutional
amendment to allow for the use of Proposition 42 funds and require 55
percent voter approval of State Sales Tax Initiatives instead of the
current 66.6 percent; and, issuing debt against the Fuel Tax increases
recommended in the 2003 RTP and still pending Legislature approval. He
added that SCAG forecasts 75 percent of the funding as local component,
referring to Proposition A and C revenues collected from retail sales,
including gasoline, and disbursed to cities, counties and other public
agencies to fund eligible transportation and transit projects. He
clarified that the RTP assumes that these revenues will continue to be
disbursed to the individual cities and counties for local projects that
conform to the fund guidelines and does not propose any diversion of these
funds to pay for regional improvements. He however noted that if local
funds are considered as part of the funding source for regional projects,
then the local projects should also be included in the RTP. He expressed
concern about categorizing projects currently being funded locally as
regional projects.
Mr. Golonski expressed opposition to the Maglev system and suggested that
the comment letter also convey the Council�s opposition. He noted that the
Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport�s passenger projected levels were based
on flawed assumptions such as a raise on Gasoline Tax and a new Sales Tax
for Los Angeles County.
Mr. Campbell expressed support for Mr. Golonski�s suggestion and noted the
potential loss of Federal funding if SCAG does not conform to the Federal
air quality standards.
Mr. Vander Borght expressed support for a comment letter opposing the
Maglev system but noted the need for the letter to also be productive. He
suggested that the comment letter include opposition to the basis of
SCAG�s projected passenger levels for the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena
Airport as well as other viable options such as a light rail system.
Mrs. Ramos commented on her participation in a SCAG workshop prior to the
release of the Draft 2004 RTP at which the Maglev Project seemed to be
well accepted. She noted that the workshop did not consider public input
as significant and suggested building individual and regional
relationships with a common goal of influencing SCAG�s decision-making
process.
Mr. Campbell and Mr. Golonski noted the challenges of finding a productive
way to communicate with SCAG.
Ms. Murphy noted her long-standing opposition to SCAG�s projections and
suggested that the Council urge Mr. Yousefian, SCAG�s Regional
Representative, to make the arguments on behalf of the City.
Mrs. Ramos concurred with Ms. Murphy and suggested writing a letter to Mr.
Yousefian as well regarding the matter.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Vander Borght that �the
Council appoint a subcommittee consisting of Mayor Murphy and Mr. Campbell
to re-draft the comment letter to SCAG�s Draft 2004 Regional
Transportation Plan.�
|
|
Carried |
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Ramos, Vander
Borght and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
203
Design Review
Committee
Procedures |
Mr. Bowler, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department, reported
that at the November 4, 2003 meeting, Council Member Campbell requested
staff to agendize a one-step two-step discussion on the pros and cons of a
design review committee. He explained that design review consists of
policies and procedures for the discretionary review of visual and
aesthetic aspects of physical development and that its different from
zoning review which deals with objective qualitative standards such as
height limits, setbacks and density, noting that traditional zoning
standards by themselves are often not able to guarantee visual results. He
stated that staff has presented the Council with a report discussing two
models of design review: administrative review, which includes developing
detailed design guidelines that make the process fairly automated; and,
discretionary review, which is a more process-oriented approach that
allows for more individualized consideration of each project but also
requires more staff and committee work in evaluating each project as
proposed.
Mr. Bowler stated that staff outlined the pros and cons of using a citizen
design review committee as opposed to design review conducted by
professional City staff. He noted that while the committee approach
usually involves more time to process applications, the professional staff
approach allows for faster processing, but reduces possibilities for
citizen input and usually requires very detailed guidelines to avoid the
impression that staff is simply imposing their preferences over the
community�s preferences. He stated that staff estimated $50,000 for
one-time start-up costs not including staff time to develop design review
guidelines and approximately $160,000 to $400,000 in annual on-going costs
necessary to support a committee. He noted that all estimates were subject
to a great variance depending on factors such as: the geographic extent
over which the City chooses to exercise design review; the design review
types; and, whether the design review scope would be limited to single
family, multi-family, commercial, or industrial developments.
Mr. Bowler also stated that staff included a table briefly summarizing pro
and con positions on: a) ability to control physical development; b)
potential impact on community appearance; c) fiscal impacts on the City
and developers; d) the potential for delay in project approval and
consequences thereof; e) possible legal liabilities; f) possible effects
on property values; and, g) the possibility for conflicts arising between
boards and commissions over design issues.
Mr. Bowler concluded that if it was the Council�s desire to investigate
the possibility of implementing a design review committee/procedures,
staff be directed to perform a more detailed analysis and estimate which
would require about six months to complete.
Mr. Golonski expressed opposition to the design review process and stated
that although the achievements are admirable, the concept is dependent on
personal taste. He indicated support for design standards which improve
the aesthetic quality of multi-family developments.
Mrs. Ramos concurred with Mr. Golonski and stated that design review was
not the most efficient way to address design issues. She expressed
interest in enhancing/implementing additional design standards, and noted
the high recurrent cost of maintaining a design review committee in light
of the current economic climate.
Mr. Vander Borght also stated that despite the good intentions of the
design review process, he did not believe that good design could be
legislated. He noted the prohibitive costs especially in the current
economic climate and suggested continuing to enhance the current design
standards.
Mr. Campbell clarified his reason for agendizing the matter and stated
that he considered design review as a means for enhancing neighborhoods by
regulating density, adding quality and reducing negative impacts on
neighborhoods. He also recognized the Council Members� comments and the
high costs associated with the design review process in light of the
current unfavorable economic climate.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Mr. Golonski that �the item
be noted and filed.�
|
|
Carried |
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Ramos, Vander
Borght and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
804-5
Consideration of
Increasing the
TPT from 10 to
12 Percent |
Mr. Hanway, Financial Services Director, reported that at the November 18,
2003 meeting, Council Member Golonski requested to agendize this item for
the Council to consider a public hearing to increase the City�s Transient
Parking Tax (TPT) from 10 percent to 12 percent. He noted that as
presented in the First Quarter Financial Status Report for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2003-04, the City�s Five Year Forecast currently shows an increasing
budgetary gap between recurring revenues and expenditures, culminating in
a deficit of approximately $8.5 million in FY 2007-08. He informed the
Council of an additional loss of approximately $3.3 million in Vehicle
License Fee backfill from the State which will increase to approximately
$4.5 in FY 2004-05.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Campbell that �another
public hearing be held to consider increasing the Transient Parking Tax
from 10 to 12 percent.�
|
|
Carried |
The motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, and Vander
Borght.
Noes: Council Members Ramos and Murphy.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Ordinance
Submitted
|
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mrs. Ramos that �Ordinance
No. 3628 be read for the second time by title only and be passed and
adopted.� The title to the following ordinance was read:
|
|
1704-3
Amend PD 97-4
(Graciela Hotel) |
ORDINANCE NO. 3628:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT ZONE NO. 97-4 AND APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 97-4 (Graciela
Hotel�Applicant: Belvedere Hotels and Resorts, LLC/Pass Avenue Associates
LLC).
|
|
Adopted |
The ordinance was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Ramos and
Murphy.
Noes: Council Member Vander Borght.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
10:32 P.M.
Reconvene Redev.
Agency, Housing
Authority, Parking
Authority and
YES Meetings |
The Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Youth
Endowment Services Fund Board meetings were reconvened at this time. |
|
Final Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications |
Ms. Murphy called for speakers for the final open public comment period of
oral communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were
Mike Nolan, recognizing City employees who provide services to residents;
Eden Rosen, commenting on the Civic Pride Committee�s Holiday Decorating
Contest; and, David Piroli, in opposition to increasing the Transient
Parking Tax and on traffic signage at the San Fernando Road, Winona Avenue
and Buena Vista Street intersection.
|
|
Staff
Response
|
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
301-2
Memorial Adjournment |
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 10:41 p.m. in memory of Thomas Robert Arnott.
____________________________
Margarita Campos, City Clerk
|
