|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Golonski, Murphy, Vander Borght and Ramos. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Members None. |
|
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.
|
|
5:06 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. 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, Burbank Firefighters Chief Officers Unit, and Burbank Police
Officers Association; Unrepresented, and Appointed Officials.
Summary of Labor Issues to be Negotiated:
Current Contracts and Retirement Issues.
|
|
|
b. Conference
with Real Property Negotiator:
Pursuant to Govt. Code
�54956.8
Name of Agency Negotiator:
Community Development Director/Susan M. Georgino.
Property:
Hillside Property behind Church�s Court (Block 130 of Rancho Providencia
and Scott Tract).
Parties With Whom Agency is Negotiating:
Loyal Pumphrey, 2311 North Silverleaf Waay, Meridian, ID 83642.
Name of Contact Person:
Loyal Pumphrey, 2311 North Silverleaf Way, Meridian ID 83642.
Terms Under Negotiation:
Grant of roadway easement along a portion of City open space behind
Church�s Court (Block 130 of Rancho Providencia and Scott Tract).
|
|
|
c. Public
Employee Performance Evaluation:
Pursuant to Govt. Code
�54957
Title of Employee�s Position:
City Manager and City Attorney.
|
|
Regular Meeting
Reconvened in
Council Chambers |
The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Burbank was reconvened
at 6:44 p.m. by Mrs. Ramos, Mayor.
|
|
Invocation
|
The invocation was given by Mr. Kramer, Community Assistance Coordinator.
|
|
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL |
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Morton Sollod.
|
|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Golonski, Murphy, Vander Borght and Ramos. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Members None. |
|
Also Present - |
Ms. Alvord, City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs. Wilson,
Deputy City Clerk.
|
|
301-1
Pearl Harbor
Remembrance |
Mayor
Ramos
presented
a
proclamation
in honor of Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day to Don Farquhar, Veterans
Commemorative Committee.
|
|
301-1
World War II
Veterans |
Mayor
Ramos
honored
the
following
World War II veterans who are Burbank residents: Edward Castro; Joseph E.
Depalo; Frank Kaden; Joseph N. Roberts; Morton Sollod; and, D. E. Blackie
Winter. She commended them individually for their service and bravery in
defending the country during World War II and expressed richly-deserved
gratitude to them.
|
|
Reporting on
Council Liaison
Committees
|
Ms.
Murphy
suggested
holding open
forum community meetings to discuss the
proposed
Airport
Development
Agreement.
Mr.
Vander
Borght
reported on the Community Services Building subcommittee meeting he
attended with Mr. Campbell.
Mr.
Campbell
reported
on the North County Maglev Committee meeting he attended with Ms. Murphy
on further developing the Orange Line from Palmdale to San Diego.
Mr.
Campbell
reported
on his appointment as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority�s
representative on the Mobile Source Air Pollution Reduction Review
Committee.
Mr.
Campbell
also
reported on his appointment to the Airport Advisory Committee under the
South Coast Air Quality Management District to participate in two studies
on the Van Nuys and Santa Monica general aviation airports to evaluate
toxicity and mass particulate matter counts at those airports.
Mrs.
Ramos
commented on
a citizen�s concern
regarding the scheduling of three consecutive dark Council meetings.
|
|
406
Airport Authority
Meeting Report |
Commissioner
Wiggins reported on the Airport Authority meeting of
December
6,
2004.
He stated
that the
Authority accepted a bid of $66,000 to re-roof building No. 60 in the old
Aviall building; and, approved Module 7.10 for the Residential Acoustical
Treatment Program in the amount of $1,134,000 consisting of 20 houses in
Burbank and 10 houses in Sun Valley.
|
|
7:11 P.M.
Hearing
1702
1204-1
1411-1
PD 2003-1
(Platt) |
Mayor Ramos stated that �this is the time and place for the public hearing
on Planned Development No. 2003-1, and related development entitlements.
The site of the proposed project is the property bounded by Alameda
Avenue, Lima Street, Olive Avenue, and property adjacent to the 134
Freeway off ramp. The applicant is PW, LLC. Specifically this hearing
encompasses the following:
-
Approval
of a Water Supply Assessment;
-
Certification of an Environmental Impact Report, Adoption of Findings of
Environmental Impact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations;
-
Adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-187;
-
Consideration of Planned Development No. 2003-1 with Development Review
No. 2000-36;
-
Consideration of a proposed Development Agreement between the City and
PW, LLC;
-
Approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map; and
-
Approval of a Resolution ordering the conditional vacation of Avon
Street between Alameda Avenue and Olive Avenue, as well as two alleys
traversing the proposed Project Site.
In addition, the proposed sale of land owned by the Redevelopment Agency
was intended to be part of this hearing. However, the Redevelopment Agency
and the Developer are still negotiating price and terms of payment of the
Agency-owned land and this item will be brought back to the Council and
Agency at a later time if the Project is approved.�
|
|
Notice
Given |
The Deputy City Clerk was asked if notices had been given as required by
law. She replied in the affirmative and advised that three pieces of
correspondence had been received on the matter.
|
|
Staff
Report |
Mrs. Forbes, Principal Planner, Community Development Department,
presented a proposal from PW, LLC, also known as the Platt Companies,
requesting Council consideration of several entitlements, including: a
Planned Development which would create a new zone and development
standards with a Development Agreement; a Development Review as required
for construction projects; a vested tentative tract map to allow the
applicant to sell the condominium units; a vacation for Avon Street and
two alleys; a Water Supply Assessment as required by Senate Bill 610; and,
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Mrs. Forbes reported that following Council denial of the Platt Companies�
original project proposal in April 2003, a new application for the
3.8-acre site bounded by Alameda Avenue, Lima Street, Olive Avenue and the
State Route 134 Freeway off-ramp has been submitted. She noted that the
zoning on the property is both MDR-4, a medium density multi-family
residential zone, and MDC-2, a limited general commercial zone.
Mrs. Forbes informed the Council that the applicant has removed all
scenarios from consideration with the exception of Scenario 5 which
consists of: 298 residential units; 20,541 square feet (sf) of
retail/restaurant space; a 12,689 sf health club; a 17,600 church with a
multi-purpose room; a 72-children child care facility; and, over 1,200
parking spaces located in a subterranean garage of up to four levels below
ground. She then discussed the site plan, building heights and setbacks,
driveway configurations, landscaping plan, water features and other art in
public places features. She noted a major change proposed by the applicant
that the design and architecture of the buildings be considered at a later
date, but the design parameters be approved.
Mrs. Forbes stated that because the predominant use proposed by Scenario 5
is residential and not the commercial mixed use called for in the Media
District Specific Plan (MDSP), a General Plan Amendment is required. She
added that the City�s consultant hired to review the plan determined that
residential use was not contemplated in the MDSP, mostly because mixed use
was not in practice at the time it was adopted in 1991. She added that
another financial study conducted for the Land Use Element revealed that
due to the oversubscribed commercial uses, a 3.8-acre site would not
result into a significant loss given the existing and entitled commercial
uses in Media District. She noted that the General Plan Amendment would
only apply to this specific site.
Mrs. Forbes also reported that a vacation is required for the project
proposal, conditioned on relocation of several utilities and a requirement
that the site must be ready for development to avoid interference with
residents and businesses on the site.
Mr. Tony Locacciato, Principal with Impact Sciences, gave an overview of
the environmental review process conducted for this project and the
summary of the impacts identified in the Final EIR for Scenario 5. He
noted that the Draft EIR analyzed five development scenarios and four
separate alternatives. He explained that the topics addressed in the EIR
include: air quality; noise; consistency with the City�s land use
policies; consistency with population and housing policies and
projections; traffic and circulation; potential impacts to public services
and utilities; aesthetics/shade and shadow impacts; and, potential impacts
on cultural resources. He then discussed the potential impacts for
Scenario 5 in comparison with the four alternatives developed by staff. He
also stated that the Final EIR includes responses to all comments received
on the Draft EIR but noted that the comments did not result in any changes
to the basic conclusions of the project impacts.
Mrs. Forbes noted that the major themes of the community�s concerns
included: traffic; air quality; proximity to schools; loss of mountain
views; excessive overall height and mass; and, architecture, prior to the
proposed architectural change. She then discussed the changes to the
project since its consideration by the Planning Board in October 2002 and
the Council in April 2003, as follows: a building height reduction by 72
feet from the last Planning Board consideration and 46 feet from the last
Council consideration; a reduction in the Floor Area Ratio from 2.36 to
1.1; elimination of a previous Development Opportunity Reserve request of
500,000 sf; the provision of a site master plan; a proposal for the
Council to have sole and absolute discretion of approval of the
architecture; a proposal to open up the corner along Olive Avenue and
Lima Street; and, establishment of a Neighborhood Protection Plan.
Mrs. Forbes informed the Council that it is staff�s determination that the
project meets all goals and additional objectives identified in the MDSP;
the development standards of the Media District; and, the criteria
required to approve a Planned Development.
Lastly, Mrs. Forbes reported that on October 18, 2004, the Planning Board,
by a vote of 4-0 recommended approval of the project and all conditions
and that their recommendations have been included in the Conditions of
Approval or discussed in the staff report.
|
|
Applicant |
Dale
Goldsmith,
representing
PW, LLC, gave the project history since the initial proposal in 2000;
described the currently-proposed Scenario 5; landscape plan; combined peak
hour trip comparison with other projects in the neighborhood; and, the
design selection process and use of design guidelines provided by staff.
He added that $3 million will be contributed towards affordable housing in
the City and that state-of-the-art Level I equipment recommended by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District will be used to reduce
construction emissions. He noted the increased setback along Olive Avenue
and the provision of a transit shuttle stop on the site, and stated that
adequate parking for loading trucks, vendors and contractors will be
provided. He also conceded to reducing the height of the tallest building,
but requested that the floor area be maintained to sustain the economic
viability of the project. In response to traffic generation concerns, he
noted the applicant�s willingness to eliminate the public health club
facility and dedicate the space for residential
uses,
without an
increase in
the number of residential units or square footage. He urged the Council to
approve the project and noted other project benefits such as: contribution
of funds for the Neighborhood Protection Plan; consistency with the MDSP;
provision of ample open space; contribution to affordable housing; and,
increased property values.
Mr.
Golonski;
Mr.
Campbell;
Mr. Vander Borght; Ms. Murphy; and, Mrs. Ramos disclosed that they have
held meetings with the applicant or their representative regarding the
project.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment in support of the project were:
Charles
Zembillas;
Wayne Schulze; Barbara Turri; Stephanie Quayle; Bart Doll; Reagan Holmes;
Craig Bullock; and, Dan Humfreville, who also clarified comments made
regarding a potential conflict of interest on his vote for the project at
the Planning Board hearing.
Commenting
in
opposition
to the project were: Frank Kaden; Rick Lacher; Michael Anderson; Lauren
Lacher; Don Elsmore; Eden Rosen; Richard Gillis; Geralyn Ricciardella;
Mark Welles; Rose Prouser; Mary Ann Christ; Patrika Darbo; Jeannie Davis;
Rolf Darbo; Esther Espinoza; Joseph Ricciardella; Alice Howell; Jennifer
Sprow; Jean Myers; Mary Brady; Mark Stebbeds; Ron Vanderford; Theresa
Karam; and, Michael Bergfeld. Also, Mark Barton commented on the need to
improve traffic circulation in the Barham Corridor.
|
|
Hearing
Closed |
There being no further response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral
comment, the hearing was declared closed.
|
|
Rebuttal Comments
Staff |
Dale
Goldsmith,
representing
PW, LLC, reaffirmed that the proforma of the project was based on
condominium units which have a higher value than apartment units; noted
that the traffic study analysis included traffic impacts from the Pinnacle
and Bob Hope projects in addition to an ambient growth factor; $1 million
will be contributed to
the
schools; the
project design process is pending residents� approval; residential uses
were not excluded from the MDSP and that housing is in compliance with
the City�s General Plan; the taller building as currently proposed could
be up to 13 stories but regardless of the number of stories the height
will be maintained; the shared parking analysis determined that the
project provides sufficient parking for all uses; the Barham Corridor
traffic impacts were included in the City�s traffic analysis; existing
tenants will be paid up to $6,000 per unit for relocation purposes; a
relocation expert will be made available and a six-month notice will be
issued; additional construction mitigation measures with regard to dust
control and air quality have been incorporated into the Conditions of
Approval; elaborated on the traffic flow intensity; noted the height of
the project was consistent with the MDSP; stated that the City�s EIR
concluded that there would be no significant view blockage; and, discussed
several site plan scenarios noting that Scenario 5 yielded the best
project.
In response to
public comment, Mrs.
Forbes noted that the Development Agreement includes default clauses in
the event the project does not meet obligations; the amendment to the MDSP
was considered at the Planning Board and Council hearings; input from the
community was received at the public
meetings; the
MSDP
amendment
was
to
only allow
for the residential component of the project; Development Impact Fees are
put into a special fund and not the General Fund; the residential
component is compatible with the Media District; elaborated on the view
impact analysis conducted by staff and on conditions added to the project
to address the associated parking and traffic issues; clarified that the
10-percent affordable housing in-lieu fee was a request but not an
imposition; noted that the affordable units would not be included in the
proposed project but the fee would help to provide affordable housing
elsewhere; commented on scheduling issues for community meetings on the
Neighborhood Protection Plan; reiterated that the EIR traffic study
included projects such as the Pinnacle Phase 2, Bob Hope and the St.
Joseph medical building; noted that the project provides adequate parking;
stated that the 3.8 acres include all the vacations and land and will not
extend the project to over four acres; added that the trip analysis
indicated 2300 net new trips would be generated from the project; noted
that there is no childcare facility currently on the site; clarified the
size of the alleys and streets proposed for vacation; noted that the
Planning Board considered Scenarios 2, 5 and 5a and the Council is
considering Scenario 5; and, commented on the potential modifications to
the Conditions of Approval suggested by the developer.
|
|
Council
Deliberation |
Mr.
Vander
Borght
requested clarification on the minimum setbacks as proposed. Mrs. Forbes
responded.
Mr.
Vander
Borght
also requested a status report on the new State Route 134 Freeway on-ramp
and the associated cost. Mrs. Forbes noted that the traffic analysis and
mitigation measures did not assume a new on-ramp. Mr. Herrmann, Assistant
Community Development Director/Transportation, added that the estimated
construction time of the on-ramp was three years and that the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is estimating $3.5 million for
their portion of relocating utilities and other right-of-way related work
and then construction would follow. He stated that the total cost of the
on-ramp is approximately $30 million which is already programmed by
Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission.
Mr.
Golonski
commented
on the allowable by-right development; noted his preference to use
standard residential densities; and, expressed opposition to R-5 zoning
density for residential projects.
Mr.
Campbell
inquired
as to why no massing was done relative to the residences across the street
from the project and requested clarification on the project construction
phases, the MDSP amendment requirement, size of the proposed parks and the
shared use parking analysis.
Mrs.
Ramos
requested
clarification
on: the future street improvements; parking availability for duplexes in
the area already using street parking; projected traffic volumes Citywide;
the traffic analysis process for mixed use developments; by-pass traffic
assumptions; the significant traffic impact criteria for Level of Service
for intersections; and, the proposed size for the condominium units. She
also expressed concern with the traffic impact determination and not
completing the Neighborhood Protection Plan.
Ms. Murphy
inquired
as to whether the elimination of the health club component would also
result in a reduction in the associated parking spaces. Staff responded in
the affirmative.
Mr.
Vander
Borght
expressed opposition
to the project as proposed, noting that the buildings were too tall and
suggested that: the tallest building be reduced from 133 feet to 93 feet;
Lima Street be widened by eight to ten feet to provide for the possibility
of an additional lane; the project be constructed in a single phase with a
maximum of two phases; the $3 million contribution towards affordable
housing be used for funding mitigation measures for traffic improvements
and the Neighborhood Protection Plan; the project proceed after the
Neighborhood Protection Plan is in place; the project be maintained as a
condominium project; the setback on Lima Street for the 70-foot building
be increased to 15 feet; and, noted that a by-right project will add much
more traffic to the area. He also supported amending the MDSP to allow for
residential housing.
Ms.
Murphy
expressed
concern with the fact that the neighborhood is still not supportive of the
proposed project. She was supportive of the height limits suggested by Mr.
Vander Borght but was uncertain about their potential impact to project
components such as open space. She also concurred with the project being
constructed in a single phase or two phases at most and expressed concern
that the Neighborhood Protection Plan has not been implemented. She noted
her dilemma in considering a project with no design in place.
Mr.
Golonski
noted
the difficultly in approving development parameters without the design;
agreed that the MDSP needs to be amended to allow for housing; approved of
the mixed use nature of the project; questioned the invasion of privacy
alleged during public comment; expressed opposition to the R-5 density but
would agree to an R-4 density; suggested a 103-foot height limit on the
tallest building and a maximum of 250 units; agreed with widening Lima
Street; noted that the onus of implementing the Neighborhood Protection
Plan should be placed on staff and not the developer; and, was supportive
of maintaining the proposed setback on Lima Street and suggested the
provision of an eight
to
ten-foot
dedication
for
future
use.
Mr.
Campbell
expressed
appreciation to the developer for the air quality elements incorporated
particularly with the construction equipment and the flexibility in
design; approved of the mixed use nature of the project; supported an R-4
density that would reduce the number of units to between 220 and 250; and,
noted the lack of support from the immediate neighborhood. He also
expressed support for the open space provisions; stated that the project
is too tall, noting there may be some privacy issues; and, expressed
concern with the MDSP amendment and the proposed
right-only-in/right-only-out traffic pattern. He was supportive of
reducing the density and height of the buildings.
Mrs.
Ramos
expressed
concern
with the potential traffic generation from the project; supported amending
the MDSP to allow residential uses; approved of the mixed use nature of
the project; expressed concern with the proposed 298 units and the
potential traffic generation; and, stated she was
not expressly
concerned
about the proposed height.
Dale
Goldsmith
responded to the Council�s comments with regard to the failure
to
garner
community
support; stated that 250 units would be the least feasible for the
project; requested that the Lima Street setbacks be maintained as proposed
and a dedication be provided; and, requested that the two taller buildings
be limited to 113 feet and 70 feet or 103 and 80 feet, respectively.
Mr.
Golonski
was
supportive
of the residential units not exceeding 250; a 103-foot height limit on the
tallest building while maintaining the height of the middle buildings at
50 feet and 70 feet; and, a slight encroachment into the open space area.
Mr.
Vander
Borght added
that the above conditions should be predicated upon the same concept of a
quality development as presented, with lush and mature trees.
Ms.
Murphy
was
supportive
of the ten percent density bonus for affordable housing.
Mr.
Campbell
concurred
with a
maximum of 250 units; the height limits of 103 feet, 70 feet and 50 feet
with the requirement that the quality of the project be maintained; and,
requested
that the Neighborhood Protection Plan be implemented prior to constructing
the project.
Mrs. Ramos concurred
with the reduced number of units, widening of
Lima Street
and supported payment of the affordable housing fee.
Mr. Golonski
proposed that the developer pay the 10 percent affordable housing fee and
that $500,000 be allocated to the Media District shuttle operation and the
remainder be used for affordable housing.
Dale Goldsmith
reported that the applicant conceded to a limit of 250 dwelling units; 103
feet for the tallest building but the building could be slightly squatter;
70 feet for the middle buildings and 50 feet for the buildings along
Alameda Avenue; a dedication along Lima Street to be determined by
transportation staff with no additional setback; and, stated that the
applicant will attempt to construct the project in one phase and not more
than two phases.
Mrs. Forbes
requested that the Council set a maximum square footage for the
residential uses.
Mr. Golonski and Mr.
Vander Borght suggested that the square footage for the retail and health
club uses be maintained and that the maximum residential square footage
not exceed the square footage as currently proposed.
Ms. Murphy noted the
challenge of approving a project with no specific design.
Mrs. Georgino
suggested that staff provide additional information on the layout of the
proposed parameters for the second reading of the ordinance. The Council
concurred.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Vander Borght that "the
following resolutions be passed and adopted and the following ordinance be
introduced as amended and read for the first time by title only and be
passed to the second reading:�
|
|
1702
Approve Water
Supply Assess.
For PD 2003-1 |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,836:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A WATER
SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR THE BURBANK MEDIA CENTER PROJECT (PD 2003-1).
|
|
1702
Certifying the
EIR for the
Burbank Media
Center |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,837:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK CERTIFYING THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003081071) FOR THE
BURBANK MEDIA CENTER, MAKING FINDINGS FOR EACH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OF THE
PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM.
|
|
1702
Approve GPA
No. 2004-187 |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,838:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 2004-187 (PW, LLC, APPLICANT).
|
|
1411-1
Conditional Vacation of
Avon St.
(V-339) |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,839:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ORDERING THE
CONDITIONAL VACATION OF A PORTION OF AVON STREET BOUNDED BY ALAMEDA AVENUE
AND OLIVE AVENUE, THE ALLEY BOUNDED BY LIMA STREET AND AVON STREET, AND
THE ALLEY BOUNDED BY CORDOVA STREET AND AVON STREET (V-339).
|
|
1204-1
Approve Tract
Map No. 61882 |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,840:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 61882 (BURBANK MEDIA CENTER PROJECT � PW, LLC,
APPLICANT).
|
|
1702
Approve PD No.
2003-1 |
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 2003-1 AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO
(BURBANK MEDIA CENTER PROJECT � PW LLC, APPLICANT).
|
|
Adopted |
The resolutions were adopted and the ordinance was introduced and passed
to the second reading by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Vander Borght
and Ramos.
Noes: Council Member Murphy.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Reporting on
Closed Session |
Mr. Barlow reported on the items considered by the City Council and the
Redevelopment Agency during the Closed Session meetings.
|
|
Initial Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications |
Mrs. Ramos called for speakers for the initial open public comment period
of oral communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were:
Don Elsmore, on the
Airport�s budget allocation for the Part 161 Study; Esther Espinoza, on
Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day recognition; Rose Prouser, on the Magnolia
Park boundaries; Mark Stebbeds, on noticing townhall meetings; Ron
Vanderford, on the Platt Project and Airport matters; Mark Barton, on
design consultation issues and on a banner on the Civic Plaza Project;
and, Eden Rosen, on a letter in the Burbank Leader.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Agenda Item
Oral Communications |
Mrs. Ramos called for speakers for the agenda item oral communications at
this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were:
Don Elsmore, Esther
Espinoza, Wayne Jackson, Eden Rosen, Mark Stebbeds, Ron Vanderford, Rose
Prouser and Mark Barton, on Airport matters.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Vander Borght and seconded by Ms. Murphy that "the
following items on the consent calendar be approved as recommended.�
|
|
Minutes
Approved |
The minutes for the regular meeting of November 2, 2004, the adjourned
meeting of November 4, 2004 and the regular meetings of November 9 and
November 16, 2004 were approved as submitted.
|
|
804-3
Assistance to
Firefighters Grant |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,841:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2004-2005 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING AND APPROPRIATING
FIREFIGHTER ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,480 FROM
THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
|
|
804-3
Homeland
Security Grant |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,842:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2004-2005 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING AND APPROPRIATING
FISCAL YEAR 2004 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT
OF $308,783.65 FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY THROUGH THE
OFFICE FOR DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS.
|
|
702-3
Starlight Bowl
Sponsorship
Program |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,843:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2004-2005 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,500 TO
THE STARLIGHT BOWL FOR EXPENDITURES FOR MATERIALS, SERVICES AND SUPPLIES.
|
|
1505
Agmt. w/Puretec
for Treatment of
Reclaim Water |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,844:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A FIRST
ADDENDUM TO THE WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN J. HARRIS INDUSTRIAL WATER
TREATMENT, INC., DBA PURETEC INDUSTRIAL WATER AND THE CITY OF BURBANK
WATER AND POWER FOR PROCESSING RECLAIMED WATER FOR POWER PRODUCTION
PURPOSES.
|
|
Adopted |
The consent calendar was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Murphy,
Vander Borght and Ramos.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
1503
Electric Service
Agmt. with
Providence
St. Joseph Medical Center |
Mr. Simay, Assistant
General Manager, Burbank Water and Power, requested Council approval of an
Electric Service Agreement (Agreement) between the City of Burbank (City)
and Providence Health System - Southern California dba Providence St.
Joseph Medical Center (St. Joseph). He reported that the Council
previously authorized BWP to pursue developing mutually-beneficial,
long-term power supply contracts with large electric customers subject to
Council approval and noted that long term contracts have been approved
with Warner Bros. and NBC.
Mrs. Meyer, Marketing
Manager, Burbank Water and Power, discussed the key terms proposed in the
Agreement as follows:
An initial seven-year term,
beginning on January 1, 2005 and remaining in effect through December 31,
2011 during which time BWP will be the exclusive provider of electricity
to St. Joseph, regardless of any changes in electric utility deregulation;
St. Joseph�s electric rates
over the life of the Agreement will be seasonal time-of-use rates for each
day within the summer period and two time-of-use periods for each day
within the winter period;
An uncontrollable force
provision that allows the utility to revert back to the non-contract
tariff rate in the event of conditions out of the utility�s control such
as earthquakes and economic events; and,
An energy efficiency assistance provision through which BWP will make a
grant of $150,000 available to St. Joseph for cost-effective energy
efficiency and/or load management purposes.
Mrs. Meyer informed the
Council that the Agreement�s fiscal impact is positive for both the City
and St. Joseph as it offers lower rates to St. Joseph that reflect
cost-of-service, encourages conservation and lowers overall local air
emissions while not requiring a rate increase for other customers.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Ms. Murphy that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1503
Electric Service
Agmt. with
Providence St.
Joseph Medical
Center |
RESOLUTION NO. 26,845:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN ELECTRICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF BURBANK AND PROVIDENCE HEALTH SYSTEM � SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA dba
PROVIDENCE ST. JOSEPH MEDICAL CENTER.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Murphy,
Vander Borght and Ramos.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Ordinances
Submitted |
It was moved by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Ms. Murphy that �Ordinance
Nos. 3657 and 3658 be read for the second time by title only and be passed
and adopted.� The title to the following ordinances were read:
|
|
1702
Approve PD No.
98-2 (AMC) |
ORDINANCE NO. 3657:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 98-2 AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO. (BURBANK ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE, L.L.C. AND
AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC., APPLICANTS).
|
|
1702
Approve PD No. 2003-2
(Champion) |
ORDINANCE NO. 3658:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT NO. 2003-2 AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO
(CHAMPION REALTY, LTD., APPLICANT).
|
|
Adopted |
The ordinances were adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Murphy, and Ramos.
Noes: Council Members Golonski and Vander Borght.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Final Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications |
There was no response to the Mayor�s invitation for speakers for the final
open public comment period of oral communications at this time.
|
|
Adjournment |
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 1:21 a.m.
______________________________
Josephine Wilson, Deputy City Clerk
|
