|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell, Golonski, Gordon, Ramos and Vander Borght. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Members None. |
|
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.
|
|
4:34 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 Labor Negotiator:
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54957.6
Name
of the Agency Negotiator:
Management Services Director/Judie Sarquiz.
Name of Organization Representing Employee:
Burbank Management Association, Unrepresented and Appointed Officials.
Summary of Labor Issues to be Negotiated:
Contracts and Retirement Issues.
|
|
|
b. Conference with Legal Counsel � Anticipated Litigation (City as
potential defendant):
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(b)(1)
Number of potential case(s): 1
|
|
|
c. Conference with Legal Counsel � Anticipated Litigation (City as
possible plaintiff):
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(c)
Number of potential case(s): 1
|
|
|
d. Public Employee Performance Evaluation:
Pursuant to Govt. Code �54957 and 54957.6
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 6:42 p.m. by Mr. Vander Borght, Mayor.
|
|
Invocation
|
The invocation was given by Pastor Paul Clairville, Westminster
Presbyterian Church.
|
|
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL |
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Kathryn Cerra.
|
|
Present- |
Council Members Campbell (arriving at 7:06 p.m.), Golonski, Gordon, Ramos
and Vander Borght. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Members None. |
|
Also Present - |
Ms. Alvord, City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs. Campos,
City Clerk.
|
|
301-1
Transit Task
Force |
Mayor Vander Borght presented Certificates of Recognition to the following
Transit Services Task Force members: Mary Brady; Kathryn Cerra; Carolyn
Jackson; Kathy Sanks; and, Council Member Campbell. He also recognized
several staff members and the contribution of the late Rory Zipp.
|
|
301-1
Mayor�s Cup
Charity Golf
Tournament |
Mayor Vander Borght presented a proclamation to Donna Anderson, President
of the Burbank Sunrise Kiwanis Club, and Michael Caggiano, Event Chair, in
recognition of the upcoming 2006 Mayor�s Cup Charity Golf Tournament to be
held on April 28, 2006.
|
|
GBIS Project
Alignment Update |
Mayor Vander Borght requested that staff provide an update on the proposed
hybrid alignment of the Glendale-Burbank Interceptor Sewer (GBIS) Project.
Mr. Andersen, Principal Civil Engineer, Public Works Department, reported
that staff has received notice of a hybrid alignment, which combines
portions of the south and north alignments of the proposed GBIS Project.
He elaborated that the hybrid alignment follows Forest Lawn Drive until
the Barham shaft site and goes north either along Clybourn Avenue, Rose
Street or Pass Avenue up to Riverside Drive, where it connects with the
north alignment into North Hollywood. He noted that pursuant to a request
made to Los Angeles Council Member LaBonge by the Council, the comment
period on the GBIS Draft Environmental Impact Report has been extended
until March 31, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. He mentioned that staff is reviewing
the hybrid alignment proposal and a detailed analysis will be provided at
a later date.
|
|
Reporting on
Council Liaison
Committees
|
Dr. Gordon reported on his participation in the Friends of the Burbank
Library photo contest.
Mrs. Ramos reported on the Ovrom Park Oversight Committee meeting she
attended with Mr. Golonski.
Mr. Golonski reported on the Peyton-Grismer Task Force meeting he attended
with Mr. Vander Borght.
Mr. Vander Borght reported on attending the Annual Ball-B-Que event and on
his participation as a judge in the Annual Student Design Contest.
|
|
7:18 P.M.
Hearing
1211
Weed Abatement |
Mayor Vander Borght stated that �this is the time and place for the
hearing on the confirmation of the itemized written report of the
Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures for the County
of Los Angeles regarding the abatement of nuisances by the removal of
weeds, rubbish, refuse and dirt from certain real property pursuant to
Resolution Number 27,169 of this Council.�
|
|
Notice
Given |
The City Clerk was asked if notices had been given as required by law.
She replied in the affirmative and advised that no written communications
had been received.
|
|
Staff
Report |
A report was received from the Public Works Department requesting Council
approval of a resolution ordering the abatement of nuisances caused by
weeds and debris on private properties, authorizing an assessment for cost
reimbursement to the County of Los Angeles and giving notice for
subsequent weed and debris abatement, if required.
Staff indicated that on February 14, 2006, the Council adopted Resolution
No. 27,169 which declared weeds and debris on private properties a
nuisance, requiring abatement. It was noted that written notice of the
public hearing was mailed to each property owner declared in the
resolution notifying them of the time and place for appeal. It was stated
that the property owners may complete the abatement themselves or have the
County of Los Angeles Weed Abatement Division clear their property. If
the property is cleared by the County, the owner�s Property Tax bill would
be assessed for reimbursement for the cost incurred. It was indicated
that there was no cost impact to the City�s General Fund or the
Redevelopment Agency budget for this program other than incidental
administrative costs.
|
|
Hearing
Closed
|
There being no response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral comment, the
hearing was declared closed.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Campbell that "the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1211
Weed Abatement
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,177:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ORDERING THE ABATEMENT
OF NUISANCES IN THE CITY OF BURBANK AS CONTEMPLATED BY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
NO. 27,169.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Gordon, Ramos
and Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
7:20 P.M.
Hearing
1702
Modifications to
Fence Standards |
Mayor Vander Borght stated that �this is the time and place for the
hearing on amending portions of the Zoning Code relating to development
standards for fences, walls, hedges and other yard features.�
|
|
Notice
Given |
The City Clerk was asked if notices had been given as required by law.
She replied in the affirmative and advised that 59 pieces of
correspondence and a telephone log with 18 phone calls had been received.
|
|
Staff
Report |
Mr. Forbes, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, requested
the Council consider an ordinance establishing interim standards for
fences, walls and hedges in residential zones. As a background, he stated
that prior to 1967, the City permitted fences, walls and hedges up to four
feet tall in front yards, and up to eight feet tall elsewhere on the
property. No setback was required for street side yards, with eight-foot
fences allowed up to the property line in street side yards. He reported
that in 1967, the standards were changed and the front yard height limit
was lowered to three feet. The eight-foot height limit was retained, but
the side yard setback was applied to fences such that any fence or wall
within the ten-foot street side yard could be no taller than three feet.
He noted that the 1967 ordinance also created corner cutoff requirements
to ensure that driver visibility at corners was not impaired by
structures, including fences and walls.
Mr. Forbes stated that the Municipal Code has traditionally focused on the
height of fences and walls but has not addressed issues of design or
materials. He added that enforcement of fence provisions has been, and
continues to be, in response to complaints only, with no proactive
enforcement. Further, he stated that there is generally no City permit or
approval required for fences and most walls, which has led to inconsistent
development patterns around the City, as fences and walls have been
constructed over the years that do not meet Code standards. He stated
that while addressing the City�s fence standards has been considered for
at least 15 years, no changes have been made since 1967.
Mr. Forbes reported that in August 2005, the Council held a public hearing
to consider the proposed fence standards and directed staff to return with
options for additional public participation in creating the standards. He
stated that the Council also called for the creation of a Blue Ribbon Task
Force that would work with staff and the community in developing new
standards. He noted that subsequently, in response to the large number of
pending complaints about fences, the Council directed staff in January
2006 to bring back a set of interim standards.
Mr. Forbes noted that the interim standards proposed by staff are based
upon the standards previously considered by the Council. He reported that
the intent of the standards is to provide additional flexibility for
homeowners by allowing taller front yard fences and addressing arbors and
other features that are present in many yards. He stated that by
addressing such features, the proposed standards would be more consistent
with existing development and would reduce the number of non-conforming
fences. He also stated that the proposed tiered enforcement program would
address the ongoing enforcement concerns and pending complaints.
Mr. Forbes informed the Council that the interim standards would be
reviewed by the Blue Ribbon Task Force and that following review and
additional public input, the Task Force would make recommendations to the
Council on whether the interim standards should be adopted as permanent
standards, and what changes should be made.
Mr. Forbes discussed that the proposed interim standards include the
following provisions: the maximum height for front yards would increase
from three to four feet. Any portion of the fence or wall higher than
three feet would be required to be of open design, such as wrought iron or
picket fence; retaining walls within front yards would be limited to four
feet in height per section, with a step-back requirement between each
section. A garden wall or fence on top of a retaining wall would be
limited to three feet and required to be of open design; hedges within 10
feet of a public right-of-way would be subject to the same height
limitations as fences. Trees planted within 10 feet of a public
right-of-way would have to be planted a minimum of eight feet apart;
arbors and pergolas would be limited to a maximum size of eight-feet high,
five-feet wide and two-feet deep, with no more than one feature per street
frontage; fence and wall ornamentation would be limited to a maximum
height and width of one foot. The features would be required to be
separated by at least eight feet; standalone ornamentation would be
limited to a maximum size of eight-feet high, five-feet wide and five-feet
deep, with no more than two features per frontage; the maximum fence and
wall height in street side yards would increase from three feet to six
feet beginning at the rear of the house and extending to the rear property
line; in single-family residential zones, height would be measured from
the abutting ground surface while in multiple-family residential zones,
height would be measured from both the abutting ground surface and the
average grade of the lot. In front and street side yards, the maximum
height would be four feet above average grade and five feet above the
abutting ground surface. In other areas of the lot, the maximum height
would be eight feet above average grade and 10 feet above the abutting
ground surface; the existing corner cutoff provision for street and alley
intersections would be retained, except that the height limitation would
be increased from three feet to four feet. A new corner cutoff provision
would be added for the intersections of driveways and sidewalks; two new
discretionary permits would be created to allow for exceptions to the
fence standards when certain findings can be made; and, enforcement of
pre-existing fences and walls that do not conform to the interim standards
would be held in abeyance when the fence or wall is six feet or less in
height and determined not to pose a safety hazard.
Mr. Forbes reported that as directed by the Council, staff mailed over
22,000 letters to all single and multi-family property owners in the City
describing the proposed standards and their intent. He added that letters
were also mailed to all real estate brokers with a Burbank business
permit. He then commented on other outreach efforts and the written
correspondence received on the matter.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were: Barbara Weiss; Larry Marx; Margaret Sorthun;
John Dincher; Sandy Dennis; Don Elsmore; Stan Smith; Lanie Miller; Deborah
Andarsen; Dubroca Sylvie; Donna Stebbeds; Eden Rosen; Rance Howard; P.J.
Masters; Barbara Buchanan; Tal Lancaster; Robert Magid; Rose Prouser; Mark
Stebbeds; Carolyn Berlin; Phil Berlin; Irma Loose; Stan Hyman; Nichola
Ellis; Mike Scandiffio; Mark Barton; David Piroli; Howard Rothenbach; Ken
Hoaglund; LaVerne Thomas; Greg Bragg; Theresa Karam; Dink O�Neal; and,
Molly Hyman.
|
|
Hearing
Closed |
There being no further response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral
comment, the hearing was declared closed.
|
|
Staff
Rebuttal |
Mr. Barlow, City Attorney, noted that additional written testimony was
submitted to the Council by Robert Magid.
Mr. Forbes responded to public testimony with regard to: permit
requirements; corner cut-off provisions; availability of the staff report
and fence standards; enforcement on existing trees; hedge standards; and,
height of retaining walls and associated measurement standards.
Mrs. Georgino, Community Development Director, responded to public comment
with regard to enforcement procedures.
|
|
Council
Deliberations |
Following Council deliberation, the ordinance was introduced with the
following amendments:
Property owners shall not be required to pay a fee when appealing a denial
of any application for Minor Fence Exception Permits or Major Fence
Exception Permits;
There shall be no height or spacing requirements on trees, bushes, hedges
or other vegetation. However, trees, hedges and other vegetation shall be
subject to the safety findings established for the abeyance of enforcement
actions for non-conforming fences and walls;
Yard features and ornamentation shall be allowed, and there shall be no
limitation on the number or size of yard features and ornamentation;
The fifth (5th) safety finding (i.e., finding �e�) shall be deleted from
Section 31-19202 regarding Enforcement Abeyance Provisions in Lieu of
Fence Permits;
During any (i) enforcement action abeyance review, (ii) review of any
application for a minor permit exception, or (iii) review of any
application for a major fence exception permit for any non-conforming
fence, wall, hedge or other feature, property owners shall have the
opportunity to propose measures to mitigate or abate any safety concerns
subject to Section 31-19202; and,
Finding No. 7 required for both Minor and Major Fence Exception Permits is
modified to read as follows: The scale and proportion of the feature are
consistent and compatible with structures on the same property and within
the general area.
Additionally, the Council adopted the proposed Fee Resolution specifically
providing that the permit fees for the Minor Fence Exception Permit and
Major Fence Exception Permit shall be $75 and $150, respectively, for the
first year following the effective date of the Ordinance, and that such
fees shall thereafter be increased to $150 and $300 for Minor Fence
Exception Permits and Major Fence Exception Permits, respectively.
The Council also directed that the application period for volunteers to
serve on the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Fences, Walls and Landscaping be
extended.
|
|
11:30 P.M.
Recess |
The Council recessed at this time. The meeting reconvened at 11:40 with
all members present.
|
|
Reconsideration of Modifications to the Fence Ordinance
Motion to amend
ordinance
failed
|
Mr. Vander Borght
clarified that the adopted standards did not apply to
commercial/industrial zones and requested reconsideration of the 300-foot
radius limitation for complaints on fence issues.
It was moved by Mr.
Campbell seconded by Mrs. Ramos to limit the complaints to within a
500-foot radius of where complainant resides. Mr. Vander Borght expressed
support.
Dr. Gordon and Mr.
Golonski were not supportive of the motion.
Following further
discussion, Mrs. Ramos withdrew her second.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Campbell that "the
following resolutions be passed and adopted and the following ordinance be
introduced and read for the first time:�
|
|
1702
Adopt a Neg.
Dec. for ZTA
No. 2005-63 |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,178:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR PROJECT NO. 2005-63 (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATING TO
FENCES).
|
|
1702
Amending Ch.
31 Relating to
Fences |
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING VARIOUS
SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 31 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO FENCES.
|
|
1702
Amend Fee
Reso. Relating to
Fences |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,179:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE III,
SECTION 1 OF RESOLUTION NO. 26,994, THE BURBANK FEE RESOLUTION, RELATING
TO FENCES.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolutions were adopted and the ordinance introduced by the following
vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Gordon, Ramos
and Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Reporting on
Closed Session |
Mr. Barlow reported on the items considered by the City Council during the
Closed Session meeting.
|
|
Initial Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications |
Mr. Vander Borght called for speakers for the initial open public comment
period of oral communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment on the Glendale-Burbank Interceptor Sewer Project
were: Mike
Scandiffio; Mary Schindler; Mary Whittle; Rance Howard; Elizabeth
Montgomery; Marsha Maupin; Molly Hyman; Frank Zugelter; and, Stan Hyman,
who also commented on the fence ordinance enforcement.
Also appearing to
comment were: Don Elsmore, on Airport issues; David Piroli, on the interim
fence standards; Eden Rosen, on soot pollution, the candidates for the
State Assembly race, graffiti removal and wayfinding signs; Nichola Ellis,
on communicating with residents via e-mail and parkway trees; LaVerne
Thomas, on the interim fence ordinance and the status of the
Transportation Element; and, Dink O�Neal, on the one-way pair operation on
Chandler Boulevard.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Agenda Item
Oral Communications |
Mr. Vander Borght called for speakers for the agenda item oral
communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were:
Mike Scandiffio, on
the interim fence ordinance; Molly Shore, on the density bonus agreement;
Rose Prouser, on the Transportation Scheduler specification, network lease
agreement with NBC Universal, Inc., and KNBC, density bonus legal opinion
and in support of compensation increases for elected officials; David
Piroli, on the interim fence standards, in support of the compensation
increases for the elected officials, the Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) Settlement Agreement and the density bonus agreement; Mark Stebbeds,
on the density bonus agreement; Carolyn Berlin, on employee contract
negotiations, the LAX Settlement Agreement and in support of compensation
increases for elected officials; Phil Berlin, on the density bonus
agreement and on comments made by a speaker at a previous meeting; and,
LaVerne Thomas, in support of compensation increases for elected officials
and on the interim fence ordinance.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Campbell that "the
following items on the consent calendar be approved as recommended.�
|
|
1007-1
1009-1
Revise Spec. of
Transportation
Scheduler |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,180:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE
SPECIFICATION OF TRANSPORTATION SCHEDULER (CTC No. 0970) AND REVISING THE
SALARY.
|
|
1010
Amend
Executive
Compensation
Plan for FY
2005-08 |
RESOLUTION NO.27,181:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
21,732 RELATING TO THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN AND SALARIES FOR
DEPARTMENT MANAGERS, APPOINTED OFFICERS, AND ELECTED OFFICERS FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2005-2008 AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR 2005-06.
|
|
1010
Amend
Compensation
Plan for Unrep.
Mid-Mgmt.
For FY 2005-08 |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,182:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
22,795 RELATING TO THE COMPENSATION PLAN AND TO SALARIES FOR UNREPRESENTED
MID-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2005-2008 AND AMENDING THE
FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR 2005-06.
|
|
1507
804-2
Optical Network
Lease Agmt. for
CTS with NBC |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,183:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF OPTICAL NETWORK LEASE AGREEMENTS FOR
COMMUNICATION TRANSPORT SERVICES-VIDEO (CTC) WITH NBC UNIVERSAL INC. (No.
CTS-001/05) AND KNBC (No. CTS-002/05).
|
|
1507
804-2
Amend Fee
Schedule to
Establish Rates
For CTS-Video |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,184:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE XII OF
THE 2005-2006 CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE TO ESTABLISH RATES FOR COMMUNICATIONS
TRANSPORT SERVICES (CTS)-VIDEO AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF
BURBANK WATER AND POWER TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED FEE SCHEDULE.
|
|
Adopted |
The consent calendar was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Gordon, Ramos
and Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
406
LAX Settlement
Agreement |
Mr. Barlow, City
Attorney, gave a brief summary of the settlement reached by
Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX) and its on-going litigation with surrounding
communities. He stated that for many years, the City of Los Angeles has
been planning for a massive multi-billion dollar expansion of LAX that
would relieve current congestion and accommodate anticipated future
demand. He stated that the plan has been changed considerably over time
and has recently generated considerable opposition. He noted that the Los
Angeles City Council approved the LAX Masterplan in December 2004 and
signed a community benefits agreement with a coalition of interest groups
which requires LAX to spend approximately $500 million on mitigation
measures for the surrounding communities. He added that in January 2005,
several local governments and interest groups which were not a party to
the benefits agreement filed suit challenging the LAX Masterplan. He
added that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved the
Masterplan in May 2005 and LAX immediately took steps to implement the
first phase of the plan which was the reconfiguration of the south
airfield. He added that in October 2005, the FAA committed to provide $39
million for the south airfield project contingent upon the outcome of some
environmental review and other approvals.
Mr. Barlow informed
the Council that in December 2005, the City and plaintiffs announced a
comprehensive settlement and on
December 13, 2005
the FAA issued an advisory opinion finding no objection to several key
elements of the settlement agreement. He noted that this settlement
agreement included provisions that: plaintiffs will dismiss all pending
litigation; LAX will discontinue use of ten existing passenger gates at a
rate of two gates per year starting in 2010, noting the gates will not be
torn down and could be used in certain circumstances as long as the total
passenger level is less than 75 million annual passengers; LAX will
convene a regional Airport Working Group to pursue a regional distribution
of air traffic and will develop a plan for encouraging growth at Ontario
and Palmdale airports; LAX will stop requiring that property owners sign
an avigation easement in exchange for sound insulation; and, approximately
$266 million over ten years would be spent in surrounding neighborhoods
for noise air and traffic mitigation. He noted that the agreement expires
on December
31, 2015; however, the commitment on discontinuing use of 10 passenger
gates does not expire until
December 31, 2020.
Mr. Barlow informed
the Council that there are several unresolved issues, such as: how long it
will take for the parties to agree on a revised Masterplan; what the final
Masterplan would entail; whether LAX will reach a capacity limit of 78.9
million annual passengers and the implications if the limit is exceeded;
the FAA approved the Masterplan but not the settlement agreement with the
exception of a few key provisions concerning the number of gates; whether
the FAA will approve a new plan for the expansion of LAX; and, whether LAX
will be able to develop a feasible plan for increasing use of Ontario and
Palmdale airports. He indicated that the results of the agreement leave
several important issues for the City and
Bob Hope Airport to
seriously consider, noting that even though the settlement agreement does
not mention Bob Hope Airport, the Airport Working Group may recommend its
increased use to accommodate a greater share of the regional traffic. He
stated that the Group may recommend that the Airport Authority accommodate
the increased use, conflicting with the Development Agreement between the
City and Airport. He stated that regardless of the recommendation,
designing LAX to accommodate no more than 78.9 million annual passengers
may induce increased use of Bob Hope Airport, considering that regional
demand is predicted to far exceed this level. He concluded by noting that
the agreement involves LAX which is a very large and significant airport,
and may have absolutely no bearing on what can or cannot be done in the
City of Burbank and at Bob Hope Airport.
The Council noted
and filed the report.
|
|
1:35 A.M.
Mrs. Ramos
Left the Meeting |
Mrs. Ramos left the meeting at this time due to a potential conflict.
|
|
1208
906
Continuation of
Density Bonus
Agmt. for
Hollywood Way
Waiver of
Confidentiality of the Legal Opinion
Density Bonus
Agreement
Budget
Amendment
|
Mr. McDougal,
Assistant City Attorney, requested continued consideration of a request by
Dan Moore, Trustee for Cheyenne Mission Trust, property owner, to enter
into a Restrictive Covenant and Density Bonus Agreement (Agreement) with
the City. He stated that on
February 21, 2006,
the Council considered the agreement with Cheyenne Mission Trust for a
35-unit apartment building project located at 1241, 1245, 1301 and
1305 North Hollywood
Way, which
was approved by the Community Development Director as Development Review
No. 2005-67. He reported that after considerable discussion, the Council
continued this matter and requested an outside legal opinion regarding the
City�s obligation, if any, to approve the Agreement. He noted that
pursuant to the Council�s request, the City Attorney�s Office solicited a
legal opinion from the law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, LLP.
Mr. McDougal
requested Council approval of: a budget amendment to cover the cost of the
legal opinion; waiver of confidentiality of the legal opinion by a
majority vote; and, the Restrictive Covenant and Density Bonus Agreement.
Mr. Vander Borght
requested Mr. McDougal�s perspective on the agreement reached between the
applicant and the appellants to withdraw their appeal. Mr. McDougal
stated that the City does not have any legal issue with the action, noting
that it is not uncommon for appellants to reach agreements with applicants
to resolve their differences.
Dr. Gordon expressed
concern with the settlement agreement and required more information on
it. He also requested that the agreement between the appellants and the
applicant be made part of the public record. The Council concurred.
Mr. Golonski and Mr.
Campbell were not in support of waiving the confidentiality of the legal
opinion. Mr. Vander Borght and Dr. Gordon were supportive of waiving the
legal opinion�s confidentiality.
Mr. Golonski noted
that the project is not compatible with the neighborhood but noted that
the City has no discretion with regard to the Density Bonus Agreement.
Dr. Gordon expressed
concern with the appeal withdrawal process, stating that the process has
been tainted.
Mr. Vander Borght
stated that the Council is being requested to approve a State-mandated
density bonus. He noted that although the project is not appropriate for
the proposed location, the law requires the Council approve the covenant
and provide for the density bonus.
Mr. Campbell
requested clarification with the appellant�s reasons for objecting to the
project and whether the objections affect the California Environmental
Quality Act decision. Mrs. Forbes, Deputy City Planner, read the appeal.
Mr. Golonski
requested clarification from the City Attorney on any legal prohibition
from the applicant making a payment to the appellant. Mr. Barlow
responded that the circumstances are not uncommon and added that even if
the alleged facts were true, they would not constitute a legal issue for
the City.
Dr. Gordon expressed
concern with the amount of the budget amendment. The Council concurred to
reduce the amount to $6,000 to pay for the cost of the submitted legal
opinion.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Vander Borght that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1208
906
Appropriate Funds for
Outside Legal
Counsel |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,185:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2005-2006 ANNUAL BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,000.00 TO FUND OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski, Gordon and
Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
Recused: Council Member Ramos.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mr. Vander Borght that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1208
906
Approve Density
Bonus Agmt.
With Cheyenne
Mission Trust |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,186:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURBANK AND CHEYENNE MISSION TRUST FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1241,
1245, 1301 AND 1305 NORTH HOLLYWOOD WAY.
|
|
Motion
Failed |
The motion to adopt the resolution failed by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski and Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Members Campbell and Gordon.
Absent: Council Members None.
Recused: Council Member Ramos.
|
|
Motion to Waive
Confidentiality
Of the Legal Opinion Failed
|
The motion by Mr. Vander Borght to release the legal opinion died due to
lack of a second.
|
|
Further Discussion
|
Mr. Campbell requested clarification as to whether there are any legal
issues with regard to the withdrawal of the appeal. Mr. Barlow and Mr.
McDougal responded that there is no legal issue for the City.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Mr. Vander Borght that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1208
906
Approve Density
Bonus Agmt.
With Cheyenne
Mission Trust |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,186:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE
RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AND DENSITY BONUS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
BURBANK AND CHEYENNE MISSION TRUST FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1241,
1245, 1301 AND 1305 NORTH HOLLYWOOD WAY.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Golonski and Vander
Borght.
Noes: Council Member Gordon.
Absent: Council Members None.
Recused: Council Member Ramos.
|
|
2:21 A.M.
Mrs. Ramos Returns
|
Mrs. Ramos returned to the Council Chamber at this time. |
|
1010
Approval of
Compensation
Packages for
Elected Officials,
City Clerk, City
Treasurer and
City Council
City Clerk and
City Treasurer
Salaries
|
Mrs. Sarquiz, Management Services Director, requested Council
consideration of the compensation packages for the Elected Officials,
including the City Clerk, City Treasurer and City Council. She noted that
according to a 12-city survey conducted, Council Members are behind the
compensation levels provided in other cities by 45.24 percent (or
$463.71); however, the Council�s compensation can only be increased up to
a maximum of five percent from the previous year pursuant to State law.
She recommended that effective July 1, 2006, the Council approve a five
percent increase to the current salary of $975 per month. She noted that
effective February 1, 2006, Council Members lost their car allowance
pursuant to Assembly Bill 1234. She mentioned that while the job of
Council Member is part-time, a tremendous amount of time is spent
researching issues, meeting with constituents, businesses, non-profit
organizations, etc. to become more informed on the issues facing the
community.
With regard to the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions, Mrs. Sarquiz
noted that both positions are an integral part of the Executive Team. She
added that the 12-city survey indicated that the City Clerk position is
behind the average market survey by 20.78 percent and the City Treasurer
position is behind the average market survey by 27.84 percent. She
recommended that effective March 1, 2006, the City Clerk and City
Treasurer positions be increased from $7,690 to $9,288, bringing both
positions to the average market survey. She also requested that similar
to the Executive positions, the Clerk and Treasurer salaries be increased
July 1, 2007 pursuant to the survey to be conducted at that time.
In addition to salary increases, Mrs. Sarquiz recommended that the Elected
Officials receive increases in cafeteria/medical premiums. She added that
effective July 1, 2006, a vision plan will be provided and effective July
1, 2007, a dental plan will be available to the Elected Officials. She
then elaborated on the recommended contributions to the Burbank Employee
Retirement Medical Trust.
Mrs. Sarquiz also stated that through the negotiation process, the Council
agreed to provide an enhanced retirement from 2% at 55 to 2.5% at 55
effective June 16, 2008 to the Miscellaneous employees, which includes the
Elected Officials. She reported that both the City and Elected Officials
will begin sharing in the cost of the benefit by contributing 2.4 percent,
effective whenever their new salaries go into effect.
The Council
concurred to bring the City Clerk and City Treasurer positions to market
survey, thereby increasing the City Clerk�s salary by 20.78 percent and
the City Treasurer�s salary by 27.84 percent.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Campbell and seconded by Dr. Gordon that �the
following resolution be passed and adopted:�
|
|
1010
Amend Exec.
Compensation
Plan for City
Clerk and City
Treasurer
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,187:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 21,732
RELATING TO THE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN FOR CITY TREASURER AND CITY
CLERK.
|
|
Adopted |
The resolution was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Campbell, Gordon, Ramos and
Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Member Golonski.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
City Council Salary
Ordinance
Introduced |
The Council concurred to approve a five percent salary increase for the
City Council effective July 1, 2005.
It was moved by Dr. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Vander Borght and carried that
�the following ordinance by introduced and read for the first time by
title only and be passed to the second reading.� The ordinance was
introduced and the title read:
|
|
1010
Amend BMC
Relating to
Compensation
of Council
Members
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING SECTION 2-202
OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO COMPENSATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
|
|
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 2:47 a.m. to Tuesday, March 7, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. for a
Utility Users Tax Study Session in the Council Chamber.
__________
Margarita Campos,
CMC
City
Clerk
|
