|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Golonski, Vander Borght and Murphy. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Member Ramos. |
|
Also Present - |
Ms. Alvord, City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs. Campos,
City Clerk.
|
|
Oral
Communications |
There was no response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral communications on
Closed Session matters at this time.
|
|
5:36 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 � Anticipated Litigation (City as
potential defendant):
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(b)(1)
Number of potential case(s): 1
|
|
|
b. 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, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Burbank
Firefighters Association, Burbank Firefighters Chief Officers Unit, and
Burbank Police Office Association; Unrepresented and Appointed Officials.
Summary of Labor Issues to be Negotiated:
Contracts for Fiscal Year 2004-05.
|
|
Regular Meeting
Reconvened in
Council Chambers |
The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Burbank was reconvened
at 6:36 p.m. by Ms. Murphy, Mayor.
|
|
Invocation
|
The invocation was given by Reverend Ron White, American Lutheran Church.
|
|
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL |
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Mrs. Cohen, Library
Services Director.
|
|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Golonski, Vander Borght and Murphy. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Member Ramos. |
|
Also Present - |
Ms. Alvord, City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs. Campos,
City Clerk.
|
|
301-1
Police Professional Esteem Awards |
Lieutenant Krafft
presented Professional Esteem Awards to the following recipients for their
exemplary work in gang suppression through the Police Department�s Gang
Detail: Sergeant Gunn; Sergeant Hawver; Officer Meadows; and, Officer
Robarts. He noted that this is the highest award given for non-hazardous
duty. Mayor Murphy joined Lieutenant Krafft in presenting the awards.
|
|
6:55 P.M.
Hearing
1703
602
Appeal of DR
2003-27 (637 N.
Fairview St.) |
Mayor Murphy stated that �this is the time and place for the hearing on
the appeal of the Planning Board�s decision affirming Development Review
No. 2003-27. The Applicant, August Bacchetta, applied for Development
Review No. 2003-27 requesting authorization to construct a four-unit
residential building at 637 North Fairview Street. Development Review No.
2003-27 was approved by the Community Development Director on August 18,
2003, which was affirmed by the Planning Board on November 10, 2003.�
|
|
Notice
Given |
The City Clerk was asked if notices had been given as required by law.
She replied in the affirmative and advised that one piece of written
correspondence was received from Mr. Bob Jones, copies of which had been
provided to the public.
|
|
Staff
Report |
Mrs. Forbes,
Principal Planner, Community Development Department, requested that the
Council consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s approval of Development
Review (DR) No. 2003-27; a request to construct a four-unit apartment
building with two floors above semi-subterranean parking at 637 North
Fairview Street. She noted that the lot is zoned R-3 and is currently
vacant as it was formerly a City of Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power utility site.
Mrs. Forbes
explained that under the DR process, staff reviews the plans and provides
comments and requirements that the project must meet to be compliant with
all City Codes and regulations. She noted that the site is within 500
feet of R-1 zoned property, thereby being subject to additional height and
lot coverage limitations. She added that the project was approved by
staff subject to meeting all requirements. Following approval, she stated
that all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject site
were noticed and a sign was posted on the site. She added that the
abutting property owners appealed the DR approval to the Planning Board
and notices of that public hearing were sent the 300-foot radius
neighborhood as well.
Mrs. Forbes informed
the Council that the major items of concern at the Planning Board appeal
hearing were: location of vehicular access to the on-site parking; size of
the development; traffic volume that will be generated by the new project;
potential loss of trees due to the proposed driveway; and, privacy of the
neighboring properties. She reported that the Planning Board approved the
project with several conditions, including: a requirement that vehicular
access be located off the alley; and, prohibiting windows on the second
story facing abutting properties, unless made of opaque material or
located higher than five feet above the floor level.
Mrs. Forbes further
stated that the Planning Board�s decision was appealed to the Council by
the same parties. She noted that the major issues of concern expressed by
the appellants include: the height of the proposed building, with
suggestion that the building be limited to one story; the building mass
being excessive and not compatible with the neighborhood; and, additional
traffic and parking demand generated being detrimental to the
neighborhood.
Mrs. Forbes added
that since the Planning Board hearing, the Council adopted an ordinance
requiring neighborhood compatibility for all multi-family residential
projects. She stated that staff reviewed the appeal in compliance with the
new ordinance and suggested changes to the front fa�ade to break the mass
of the structure, and thus achieving a reasonable amount of compatibility
with the surrounding properties which are mostly one story. She stated
that with additional design changes, the second story has been set back
from the first story, and additional elements on the front fa�ade were
added to minimize visibility of the garage level. She added that the
appellants also requested walls on the interior side yards for privacy and
a pedestrian access from the garage to the units, separate from the
proposed driveway.
Mrs. Forbes stated
that the Burbank Municipal Code requires several findings, including
compatibility, to be made to approve a project. She added that staff
believes that the project as currently proposed and conditioned is
reasonably compatible with the neighborhood, given the allowances in the
Zoning Code and goals identified in the General Plan. She noted that the
Council could require further design changes to achieve compatibility, and
requested that the Council approve the subject Development Review as
proposed with conditions and deny the appeal.
|
|
Appellant
|
Bob Jones, owner of
the property located at
631 North Fairview
Street, reported that the appellants have reviewed the revised plans but
still hold the opinion that the project is not compatible with the
characteristics of the neighborhood. He noted that the appeal process
would have been prevented if compatibility was incorporated into the
project�s conceptual plans and if the developer solicited neighborhood
input. He acknowledged the applicant�s right to develop his property but
stated that the neighborhood was concerned about the two-story concept;
the parking access from the alley; and, the semi-subterranean parking. He
noted that the alley is already impacted by high traffic volume and noted
the blind spots which would create a safety hazard. He requested that the
Council consider the appeal and require the developer to down-size the
project. He also noted that the neighborhood currently has three vacant
lots and if this project is approved, the neighborhood will be exposed to
several massive projects. He added that this will create an overcrowded
area; aggravate the lack of parking and excessive traffic; and, increase
the possibility of crime, thereby affecting the quality of life of the
neighborhood. He submitted flyers and a petition with 112 signatures in
opposition to the project.
|
|
Applicant |
Glenn Lotka, owner
of the property located at
637 North Fairview
Street, stated that he acquired the property after reviewing the zoning
Code. He added that his architect designed a project that met the criteria
for the R-3 Zoning Code. He further stated that upon project approval, the
adjacent property owners appealed his project to the Planning Board but
the appeal was denied. He noted that the Planning Board recommended
several changes to make the project more compatible with the neighborhood.
He stated that after the changes were made, planning staff approved the
project but the neighborhood filed another appeal, citing concern over
parking availability; high traffic volume; building size; and, the
semi-subterranean parking lot. He noted that the parking garage will not
be highly visible and stated that similar structures exist in the
neighborhood. He acknowledged the lack of parking in the neighborhood and
noted that his project will provide adequate parking for the tenants. He
also noted the challenge of achieving the parking requirement with a
one-story structure and requested that the Council approve his project as
it meets all Code and compatibility standards.
Mr. Bachetta,
architect, addressed the compatibility issue and noted that the project
has been designed to meet all Code and compatibility standards of R-3
Zones. He noted the non-conformance in the neighborhood with regard to
parking, garage sizes, roofing and painting materials, window sizes,
sprinkler system requirements and noted that two-story buildings exist in
the adjacent neighborhood.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment in opposition to the proposed project were:
Veronica Share,
resident at 631-633 North Fairview Street; Tommie Minard, owner of
property located at 620-622 North Fairview Street; Chris Alvarez,
resident on Rosemary Lane; Marvin Alvarez; Thomas Dragomer, resident on
Rosemary Lane; Sharon Perkins; Rhonda Bell; John and Josephine Murillo,
residents at 546 North Fairview Street; Glenn Reasoner, resident of 672
Rosemary Lane; Kenneth Herring, owner of property located at 625-627 North
Fairview Street; Monica Welsh, resident at 672 Rosemary Lane; Brenda
Willitz, resident at 633 North Fairview Street; Dave Tavitian; Armand
Mardirossian; Jeana Adair; Michelle MacNeil; Benjamin James, resident at
642 North Fairview Street; and, Carlton Russell. Mark Barton, commenting
on contacts he made with residents of Fairview Street and playing a
videotape of a former Council meeting where this issue was discussed; and,
David Piroli, inquiring whether approval of this development will set the
wrong precedent, noting all the properties in the existing neighborhood
were built to Code at the time they were built, inquiring whether these
units are condos or apartments and whether an extended family could move
into one of the units.
|
|
Rebuttal |
Mr. Jones noted the
efforts the appellants have undertaken in the appeal process. He also
commented on the challenges posed by the changes in public hearing dates
and emphasized that the neighborhood was not opposed to developing the lot
as long as the project was compatible. He also stated that the alley was
already impacted by high traffic volumes and commented on the possibility
of a parking variance for the guest parking space.
Mr. Lotka noted that
the change in the parking lot access from
Fairview Street
to the alley was in response to the neighborhood concern about excess
traffic on the street. He reiterated that he acquired the property with
the intent of developing it to its fullest potential as allowed by the R-3
Zone Code.
Mr. Bachetta noted
that the plan could be modified to accommodate two two-story duplexes on
the lot and will still accommodate four families. He also noted the access
to the building from the garage and commented on the challenges posed by
the encroachment and easements on the property.
|
|
Staff |
In response to
public comment, Mrs. Forbes responded that the development would be
subject to the construction activity restrictions; the Planning Board
required that the project�s parking access be off of the alley; the
parking exit is in a location furthest away from the blind curve; the
Planning Board required that the windows be at a specific level so as to
preserve privacy issues; the units are currently proposed as apartments,
but in the future, the owner could file a tract map to make them
condominiums; the project is providing its Code- required parking; and,
the lot is in an R-3 Zone allowing for up to four units on the lot.
|
|
Hearing
Closed |
There being no further response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral
comment, the hearing was declared closed.
|
|
Council deliberation |
Mr. Golonski noted
that the property is zoned R-3; the proposed project is maximizing the
allowed density; the project requires nine parking spaces which
necessitates semi-subterranean parking; and, stated that although the
revised plans are more compatible with the neighborhood, the project will
ultimately change the character of the neighborhood. He noted the parking
challenges in the neighborhood, stated that the developer is in compliance
with the Code, but also noted the testimony given by the residents with
regard to compatibility issues. He stated that what the neighbors
expressed as compatible was an R-2 neighborhood and suggested an Interim
Development Control Ordinance (IDCO) for the entire area in order to
down-zone from R-3 to R-2. He noted that this would pose a hardship on
the developer, but stated that otherwise, such issues would continue to
arise in the future.
Mr. Campbell
requested clarification as to the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power underground equipment and Mrs. Forbes responded that the equipment
has been abandoned. Mr. Campbell was not supportive of the access off of
the alley and noted that there will be instances where residents of this
development will choose to park on the street. He stated that the project
needed to be further scaled back. He also requested further clarification
on the IDCO option, noting that the R-3 area is surrounded by R-1
properties.
Mr. Vander Borght
noted that change was inevitable and that the Council was limited to
managing how change occurs. He was opposed to down-zoning the neighborhood
since it would affect property values. He stated that the property is
zoned R-3 and prohibiting the proposed density would require an IDCO which
would affect property values. He also noted that the project could be
built as two large units with similar results.
Ms. Murphy stated
that she could not make a finding for preserving the character and
integrity of the neighborhood. She also stated that parking was not
adequate, since many households own more than two vehicles.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski, seconded by Mr. Vander Borght and carried
with Mrs. Ramos absent that "the hearing be continued to April 13, 2004
with staff being directed to review original plans and develop
alternatives more compatible with the neighborhood.�
|
|
9:20 P.M.
Hearing
1704-3
602
Appeal of CUP
2003-29 (990
N. Hollywood
Way) |
Mayor Murphy stated that �this is the time and place for the hearing on
the review of the Planning Board�s decision approving Conditional Use
Permit 2003-29, a request by Ken Fisher to modify the permitted hours of
operation for the businesses at the property located at 990 North
Hollywood Way. The subject property is zoned MPC-1, Magnolia Park
Commercial Retail. The Conditional Use Permit was approved by the
Planning Board on January 26, 2004.�
|
|
Notice
Given |
The City Clerk was asked if notices had been given as required by law.
She replied in the affirmative and advised that one piece of written
correspondence was received from Mr. Kevin McDonald, on behalf of the
property owner at 990 North Hollywood Way, copies of which had been
provided to the public.
|
|
Staff
Report |
Mr. Ochsenbein,
Senior Planner, Community Development Department, reported that in
February 2002, the Council affirmed the Planning Board�s decision to
approve Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 2000-30; a request to subdivide
the Old Thrifty building located at 990 North Hollywood Way into a
multi-tenant retail space with a reduced parking requirement and allow
restaurant uses on the site. He added that the original project approval
included a condition of approval that limited the business hours of all
but one tenant to between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Also, a parking lot
associated with the property along Cordova Street was limited to the same
hours.
Mr. Ochsenbein added that the applicant has subsequently gained
Development Review approval to change the use and submitted plans to the
Building Division. He stated that following several unsuccessful efforts
to lease the property, a potential tenant has been secured to occupy the
retail portion of the project. However, he noted that the since the
tenant�s business of retail sales of paint and supplies requires operating
hours beyond those currently approved for the project, the applicant, Ken
Fisher, is requesting to amend the conditions of approval to remove the
business hour restrictions that were previously imposed.
He informed the Council that on January 26, 2004, the Planning Board
approved a compromise to allow the previously restricted businesses to
open at 6:30 a.m. but retained the 10:00 p.m. closing time. He added that
the restrictions on the Cordova Street parking lot were modified to match
this condition. Following the approval, he stated that the Council
appealed the Planning Board�s decision.
Mr. Ochsenbein further explained that while businesses are generally
permitted to operate as early as 6:00 a.m. regardless of proximity to
residential zones, a specific condition of approval was placed on this
project to further limit business hours for all but one restaurant use.
He added that this condition of approval was based upon concerns raised
regarding noise impacts on surrounding properties from customers using the
parking lots. Considering the fact that businesses in the vicinity are
permitted to operate as early as 6:00 a.m., he stated that the Planning
Board also modified the conditions of approval to allow for all of the
businesses that were previously restricted to begin operations at 9:00
a.m. to begin business at 6:30 a.m. while retaining the 10:00 p.m. closing
time. He stated that the Planning Board made this modification based upon
its ability to make the six required findings for granting a CUP. He
requested that the Council affirm the Planning Board�s decision regarding
this application.
|
|
Applicant |
Ken Fisher,
applicant, noted the efforts he has undertaken to secure an appropriate
tenant for his property. He stated that with the limited operation hours,
he has been unsuccessful in securing a retail or restaurant tenant. He
added that he has reached an agreement for a Dunn Edwards paint store but
requires a modification in hours of operation. He stated that the Planning
Board hearing was noticed to the neighborhood and that the findings to
modify the hours of operation could be made. He also noted the property
improvements which he has undertaken so far and requested that the Council
uphold the Planning Board�s approval.
|
|
9:34 P.M.
Mr. Vander
Borght left the
Meeting |
Mr. Vander Borght left the meeting at this time due to a potential
conflict of interest with this item.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were
Robert Magid,
stating that multi-tenant use at this location is not compatible and
citing potential traffic problems which will occur in an already highly-
impacted area; David Piroli, commenting on the hours of operation; Mike
Nolan, in support of the appeal, inquiring as to how long a Conditional
Use Permit lasts and stating staff should not be advocating a position on
the matter; and, Gerald Berry, representing Dunn Edwards Corporation,
expressing a desire to work with residents in the area, noting that the
operation hours are usually 6:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., stating the company is
willing to work with the City regarding early delivery times and that the
business will be a good addition to the neighborhood.
|
|
Rebuttal |
In response to
public comment with regard to contractors being on the premises between
1:00 a.m. and
5:30 a.m., Mr. Fisher responded that the leases with tenants include a
copy of the conditions of approval which need to be adhered to and that
delivery hours will be coordinated to avoid interfering with peak traffic
hours.
|
|
Hearing
Closed |
There being no further response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral
comment, the hearing was declared closed.
|
|
Council Deliberation |
Ms. Murphy was
opposed to modifying the hours of operation, and noted the lack of parking
in the area and the proximity to residences.
Mr. Golonski
supported modifying the hours of operation to allow a single retail use to
start at 6:30
a.m. but was opposed a parking waiver. He was also opposed to changing the
restrictions on the Cordova Street parking lot and suggested that staff
add an additional condition specifying that deliveries are prohibited
prior to a specific time.
Mr. Campbell
suggested modifying the hours of operation of the paint store to start at
7:00 a.m. He
also opposed changes to the Cordova Street parking lot hours and suggested
that deliveries be prohibited prior to 7:00 a.m.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski, seconded by Mr. Campbell and carried with
Ms. Murphy voting no and Mrs. Ramos and Mr. Vander Borght absent that
�this item be continued to the March 16, 2004 Council meeting.�
|
|
10:16 P.M.
Mr. Vander
Borght returned
to the meeting |
Mr. Vander Borght returned to the meeting at this time.
|
|
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
Frances Munoz, on
parking restrictions around a pre-school located at 310 East Alameda
Avenue; Robert Magid, on reporting graffiti in a timely fashion; Mark
Barton, alleging misconduct by a City employee; Irma Loose, commenting on
Mr. Barton�s allegations; Stan Hyman, commending City staff; Dink O�Neal,
in opposition to a Hooters Restaurant opening in Burbank and commenting on
newsstands which contain pornographic material; and, David Piroli, on Bob
Hope Airport receiving recognition for being one of the safest airports in
the country.
|
|
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
Gary Yamada,
representing West Wind Media, requesting that if the Home Depot matter is
set for hearing, the item be limited to the operation cost and location of
the day labor center and requesting that the Council consider adopting a
labor solicitation ordinance to keep day laborers from loitering on City
sidewalks; Dink O�Neal, commenting on the day labor center at the proposed
Home Depot project, in opposition to expending City funds for such a
purpose, noting this situation does not occur at Lowe�s and inquiring
whether the City has laws prohibiting loitering; Mark Barton, commenting
on Mr. Campbell�s comments with regard to his interaction with residents
on Fairview Street; Mike Nolan, commenting on Conditional Use Permit No.
2003-29; Stan Hyman, suggesting a location for the Home Depot day labor
center; and, David Piroli, in support of setting a public hearing to
consider the Home Depot Project.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Vander Borght and seconded by Mr. Campbell that "the
following item on the consent calendar be approved as recommended.�
|
|
1301-3
AB 2928 Street
Improvement
Proj. (B.S. 1132) |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,675:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AND ADOPTING
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DETERMINING THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ACCEPTING THE BID, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A
CONTRACT FOR 2002-2003 AB 2928 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BID SCHEDULE
NO. 1132 AND AMENDING THE FY 2003-2004 ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF
$298,826.69.
|
|
Adopted |
The consent calendar was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Vander Borght
and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Member Ramos.
|
|
804-5
Local Taxpayers
And Public
Safety Protection
Act Ballot
Initiative
|
Mr. Hanway, Financial Services Director, requested Council approval of a
resolution supporting the proposed initiative for the November 2004 ballot
entitled The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act (Ballot
Initiative). He reported that for over ten years, the California State
Legislature has been taking away increasing amounts of local tax dollars
that local governments use to provide essential services such as police
and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks and
libraries. He stated that the aggregate net loss to Burbank from the
State�s diversion of Property Tax alone over the last ten years is over
$30 million dollars. He added that the Governor�s proposed Fiscal Year
(FY) 2004-05 budget could take away an additional $1.069 million from
Burbank in the form of an Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
shift, bringing the City�s total-to-date net loss to over $34 million by
the end of FY 2004-05. In addition, he stated that the current
permutation of the Sales Tax for Property Tax swaps is now involved in
litigation with the City of Cerritos taking the lead and other cities,
including Burbank, joining the suit.
Mr. Hanway informed the Council that the Ballot Initiative is sponsored by
the League of California Cities (League), the California State Association
of Counties and the California Special Districts Association and that
support was also expected from public safety and health advocates,
taxpayer and business groups, seniors and community leaders. He added that
cities such as Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Sacramento, San Diego, Fresno
and Salinas; and counties such as San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Monterey
and Fresno, have also publicly endorsed the Ballot Initiative.
Mr. Hanway explained that the Ballot Initiative will: require voter
approval before the Legislature can reduce local government revenues or
take them for State rather than local purposes; ensure that local tax
dollars are available to fund local services such as police and fire,
emergency and trauma care, parks, roads and libraries; make it absolutely
clear that if the State Legislature mandates that local governments
provide new or expanded programs or services, then the State would have to
reimburse local agencies for the cost of those programs; and, continue to
provide flexibility for State budgeting decisions, but require voter
approval on any future State Legislative actions that would reduce funding
for essential local services.
He also emphasized that the Ballot Initiative will not: raise taxes
because it protects local revenue sources from State raids; increase
funding to local governments; reduce funding that schools receive from
local Property Taxes or funding that schools receive from the State; or,
reduce funding for other State programs such as highways or schools.
With regard to the status of the Ballot Initiative, Mr. Hanway reported
that it was filed with the State Attorney General on December 10, 2003;
the Attorney General prepared the title and summary on February 4, 2004;
and, the campaign is in process to gather 1,000,000 signatures before the
April 15 submission deadline, in order to qualify the Measure for the
November 2004 ballot. He also added that adopting the resolution
supporting this Ballot Initiative would not have any fiscal impact to the
City.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Vander Borght and seconded by Mr. Campbell that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
804-5
Local Taxpayers
And Public
Safety Protection
Act Ballot
Initiative |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,676:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE
BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY
DIVERT LOCAL TAX FUNDS.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Vander Borght
and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Member Ramos.
|
|
203
Santa Monica
Mountains
Conservancy
Committee
Appointment
|
Mrs. Campos, City Clerk, requested that the Council consider making an
appointment to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory Committee
(Advisory Committee). She stated that the Advisory Committee meets monthly
and works closely with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Board. She
explained that the Advisory Committee members propose and review projects
for Conservancy Board action, report on the conformity of projects with
the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Strategic Plan and Rim of the
Valley Corridor Master Plan, and review proposed amendments. She informed
the Council that following the expiration of Mr. Terre Hirsch�s four-year
term on January 11, 2004, staff advertised for applications to fill the
vacancy, and as of the February 27, 2004 deadline, one application from
Mr. Garen Yegparian was received.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Campbell, seconded by Mr. Vander Borght and carried
with Mrs. Ramos absent that �Mr. Garen Yegparian be appointed to a
four-year term on the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory
Committee expiring January 11, 2008.�
|
|
1506
1503
BWP Energy
Surveys and
Energy-Efficiency
Retrofit
Program |
Mrs. Meyer requested Council approval of Burbank Water and Power�s (BWP)
energy survey and energy-efficiency installation program, and a
Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Richard Heath and Associates,
Inc. (RHA). She stated that the program would target small to medium
electricity users who are less likely to take advantage of BWP�s
energy-efficiency rebate programs.
Mrs. Meyer informed the Council that staff proposed entering into a
contract with an experienced and reputable company to perform energy
surveys and energy-efficiency retrofit installations for eligible business
customers. She added that Burbank businesses with annual energy use in
the range of 10,000 to 250,000 kilowatt-hours (energy costs of $100 to
$3,000) would be eligible to participate in this service. She explained
that the program will provide up to $1,000 in installations without the
business having to contribute any funding and that participating
businesses will select preferred options from a list of energy-saving
recommendations, including: programmable thermostats; changing
incandescent lights to compact fluorescent lights; retrofitting
fluorescent tube lighting; and, air conditioning and refrigeration
tune-ups.
Mrs. Meyer reported that in
late 2002 the Southern California Public Power Authority issued a Request
for Proposals for audit services. She added that five proposals were
received and staff met with four of the agencies, including RHA. She
stated that RHA provided the most competitive pricing, however the
structure of the RFP was for the involvement of multiple utilities. She
also stated that in December 2001, Glendale Water and Power issued a bid
request for energy surveys and RHA again prevailed and was awarded the
competitive bid. With few modifications, she added that BWP plans to
offer a similar program to Glendale Water and Power�s successful Smart
Business Program, which RHA manages. Beyond offering competitive pricing,
she stated that RHA is highly recommended with a proven track record of
working effectively with business customers and City staff. She noted that
Glendale Water and Power recently extended its contract with RHA to
continue managing their program through June 2006.
Mrs. Meyer also reported that the proposed term of the PSA is March 1,
2004 through June 30, 2005. She noted that the fifteen-month time frame
specifies a cost of service not to exceed $437,500. She added that funds
are available through BWP�s Public Benefits commitment, including $350,000
currently budgeted to support the proposed program and that an estimated
250 Burbank businesses will receive service through the program during
this time frame.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Campbell that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1506
1503
PSA w/Richard
Heath and
Associates |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,677:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND RICHARD
HEATH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Vander Borght
and Murphy.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Member Ramos.
|
|
1704-3
602
CUP 2002-6,
Sign Variance
2002-1 and
DR 2002-12
(Home Depot) |
Ms. Murphy noted receipt of correspondence from Mr. Francis Y. Park,
Attorney representing Home Depot, requesting that the item be postponed to
the March 16, 2004 Council meeting.
The Council postponed the item to the March 16, 2004 Council meeting.
|
|
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,
commenting on Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-29; and, Garen Yegparian,
expressing appreciation to the Council for his appointment to the Santa
Monica Mountains Conservancy Advisory Committee.
|
|
Staff
Response
|
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
302-1
Memorial
Adjournment |
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 11:27 p.m. in memory of Paul Steckel.
____________________________
Margarita Campos, City Clerk
|
