|
Regular Meeting
Reconvened in
Council Chambers |
The regular meeting of the Council of the City of Burbank was reconvened
at 6:38 p.m. by Mr. Campbell, Mayor.
|
|
Invocation
|
The invocation was given by Bob Kramer, Community Assistance Coordinator.
|
|
Flag Salute
ROLL CALL |
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Mr. Kevin McCarney.
|
|
Present- - - - |
Council Members Golonski, Gordon, Ramos, Vander Borght and Campbell. |
|
Absent - - - - |
Council Members None. |
|
Also Present - |
Mr. Flad, Assistant City Manager; Mr. Barlow, City Attorney; and, Mrs.
Campos, City Clerk.
|
|
301-1
Military Banner
Program |
Mayor Campbell briefly described the Military Service Banner Program and
introduced
the families of the following members of the armed forces who are
currently serving in the military and are being honored through the City�s
Military Banner Program:
Private First Class Cara Duda, United States Army; Sergeant Tony Alonzo,
Jr., United States Marines; Lance Corporal Salvador Ambriz, United States
Marines; Specialist Michael Morgan, United States Army; Airman Amanda
Pate, United States Navy; and, Private Jason Louis Zigler, United States
Army.
|
|
305-4
Sister City Committee |
Mayor Campbell presented a proclamation in honor of the Burbank Sister
City Program to Sharon Cohen, Library Services Director. Ms. Cohen
welcomed the chaperones and exchange students from Ota, Japan. The
chaperones and students introduced themselves individually, as follows:
Satoko Kurata and Fukashi Kawakami, chaperones, and students; Mamiko
Kobayashi, Mariko Kobayashi, Yume Suzuki, Rie Takayanagi, Ruri Hayashi,
Yuki Ichikawa, Nino Imai, Erika Okonogi, Eri Sata, Mina Sato, Shiori
Miyazaki and Haruna Muraoka. Mayor Campbell was presented with gifts from
the Mayor of Ota, Japan.
|
|
301-1
Assembly Member Frommer -
State of the State Address
|
Assembly Member Dario Frommer gave his State of the State Address. He
noted several challenges facing the State, the majority of which he hoped
would be addressed. He stated that one of the State�s major challenges is
the crumbling infrastructure of schools, universities, roads and water
systems which were built to accommodate approximately 20 million residents
as opposed to the State�s current 36 million. He stated that a package of
bonds consisting of Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D and 1E, has been placed on
the November 2006 ballot to fund major investments in the infrastructure.
He also stated that for the first time in five years, an on-time budget
was passed, and highlighted the following components of the budget: an
allocation of $3 billion towards paying off debt; education being fully
funded; the money borrowed from school funds will be repaid starting this
fiscal year; school districts like the Burbank Unified School District
will receive additional funds from equalization school district funding;
community college fees are being reduced; planned fee increases in the
California State University and University of California school systems
were retracted; and, the budget includes the first installment of
Proposition 1A funding to local governments.
Assembly Member Frommer noted several pressing issues that he hoped would
be addressed by the Legislature, including: the health care crisis;
affordable prescription drugs; State economy; and, environmental issues.
He also discussed several local issues that he hoped to address, such as:
the siting of group homes; identity theft; Metrolink at-grade crossings;
and, the use of the push-pull configuration by commuter trains. He
thanked the Council and the community for their support and announced his
upcoming block party on August 12, 2006 at Johnny Carson Park.
Mr. Campbell recognized the infrastructure crisis throughout the Southern
California region and inquired as to the implications of Proposition 1A to
the Burbank community and the surrounding region and what else the City
can do to seek additional funding.
Mr. Vander Borght emphasized the importance of improving mass transit and
requested that Burbank be kept in mind for any possibilities of improving
transit systems.
Dr. Gordon expressed concern with loss of local government control with
regard to the Inclusionary Housing and cable television legislation, and
inquired as to any measures being taken by the State regarding increasing
energy costs.
Mr. Golonski noted that the biggest issue regarding the telecommunication
legislation is access and that certain areas of the community should not
be left out. He also requested that the State consider increasing
alternative fuel vehicle incentives. He appreciated the effort regarding
the increasing health care costs and expressed concern with the gradual
shifting of the insurance sector and hospital system from non-profit to
for-profit.
Mrs. Ramos commended the effort regarding the siting of group homes and
expressed support for alternative fuels. She also noted that the City�s
position on the telecommunications legislation is being represented by the
League of California Cities and stated that there are still several
concerns.
|
|
Reporting on
Council Liaison
Committees
|
Mr. Campbell requested Mr. Davis, General Manager, Burbank Water and
Power, to provide an update on the recent power outages caused by the heat
wave during the past several days and commended staff who worked
tirelessly to restore the power.
|
|
406
Airport Authority
Meeting Report |
Commissioner Wiggins reported on the Airport Authority meeting of
July 24, 2006. He
stated that the Authority awarded a ground lease in the amount of $705,000
annually to Affordable Storage LLC for 15 acres of land on the north-east
quadrant of the B6 Trust Property. He noted that the lease runs
concurrently with the Development Agreement.
Mr. Vander Borght noted receipt of an email regarding his inquiry about
the status of the Airport Authority�s response to the possibility of
building a transit facility in connection with the Amtrak station via
Federal funding. He noted that the email indicated that the Authority was
interested but reluctant to proceed with such action as it would require
an amendment to the Airport�s Development Agreement with the City. He
also stated that the correspondence indicated that the Authority would
consider an amendment to the Development Agreement if other issues would
be addressed as well. He noted his desire to avoid missing an opportunity
for a transit facility that would allow buses to go in and out of the
Airport without having to go around the entire Airport route and provide
additional parking. He clarified that he would only reconsider the
Development Agreement for that issue.
Dr. Gordon requested clarification with regard to the ground storage
facility and Commissioner Wiggins responded that the facility will only
store recreational vehicles.
The Council noted and filed the report.
|
|
8:22 P.M.
Hearing
1702
Appeals and Development Review Process
for Planning
Applications
|
Mayor Campbell stated that �this is the time and place for the hearing on
Project No. 2006-008, which involves a Zone Text Amendment to update the
appeal processes for planning applications and the development review
process.�
|
|
Meeting
Disclosures
|
Mr. Campbell disclosed that he corresponded with an Attorney from the law
firm of Latham and Watkins LLP.
|
|
Notice
Given |
The City Clerk was asked if notices had been given as required by law.
She replied in the affirmative and advised that the City Clerk�s Office
received 43 emails and two letters on the matter.
|
|
Staff
Report |
Mr. Forbes, Senior Planner, Community Development Department, reported
that at the March 27, 2006 Planning Board meeting, staff provided a report
on the City�s appeal process for planning applications and presented
options to consider if the process were to be amended. He added that at
the June 27, 2006 Council meeting, staff provided a report regarding the
on-going update of the Land Use and Mobility Elements of the City�s
General Plan and the related development and traffic model, and based upon
recommendations from both bodies staff has prepared a Zone Text Amendment
(ZTA) that would amend the City�s appeal and development review processes
for planning applications.
Mr. Forbes noted that the Burbank Municipal Code currently provides
minimal information regarding the appeal process for planning applications
and does not clearly define the roles and responsibilities of applicant,
appellant, public, Planning Board and Council, in the event an appeal is
filed and withdrawn. He stated that the proposed ZTA would add new
language to the Municipal Code, detailing the appeal process, obligations
for recusal and the Council�s ability to take action as a body, in-lieu of
appeal. In addition, a cutoff date after which an appeal may not be
withdrawn by the appellant will be created, such that rather than
permitting withdrawal of an appeal up until the public hearing, appeal
withdrawals would not be permitted as of 20 days prior to the public
hearing. He explained that the cutoff is set to coincide with the mailing
of public notices and advertisement of the public hearing in the Burbank
Leader newspaper.
Mr. Forbes reported that staff additionally recommended codifying a
citizen participation process that would require a community meeting for
all development review projects, which are currently not subject to a
public hearing and are approved administratively by the Community
Development Director. He added that it was staff�s intent to provide the
public with an opportunity to voice comments and concerns to staff and the
project applicant prior to issuance of the decision by the Community
Development Director. He stated that staff is currently holding these
meetings on a trial basis on alternate Monday evenings when there is no
Planning Board meeting. Additionally, at the recommendation of the
Council, staff proposed that the noticing radius for development review
applications be increased from 300 to 1,000 feet to be consistent with
other types of planning applications.
Mr. Forbes also discussed that staff proposed additional changes to the
development review process that are intended to be in place for an interim
period until the Council considers the proposed General Plan update and
related development regulations. He stated that currently,
non-residential development review projects that are located more than 150
feet from a single-family residential zone and are not regionally
significant as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
are processed through a ministerial development review process without
being subject to environmental review, including a traffic impact
analysis. He noted that as such, the potential exists for a relatively
large project which can cause significant traffic impacts to be processed
without discretion or environmental review. He added that as proposed by
staff, all non-residential projects having 50 or more trips during the AM
or PM peak traffic hours would be processed as discretionary applications
and would be subject to environmental review. In addition, all projects
generating 50 or more trips would be subject to additional discretionary
findings and would have to be approved by the Planning Board following a
noticed public hearing, rather than being approved administratively by the
Community Development Director. As proposed, this process would be in
place for an interim period of ten months to allow for the additional
outreach and study that have been requested by the Council for the General
Plan Update.
Mr. Forbes reported that the Planning Board considered the proposed ZTA,
absent the additional changes requested by the Council on June 27, 2006,
at a public hearing on June 12, 2006. All Board members expressed their
support for the community meeting requirement and increasing the noticing
radius from 300 to 1,000 feet. The Board voted 4-0 to recommend that the
Council adopt the ZTA as proposed by staff, with the additional provision
that an appeal be heard by the appropriate body no later than 75 days
after it has been filed. He noted staff�s position that given the time
necessary to prepare for a hearing and the related reports and notices,
the time limitation proposed is not practical due to potential delays by
project applicants as they prepare revised plans for an appeal hearing and
as such, specifying a time in the Code is not necessary. He also noted
that the Board voted 2-2 on a recommendation that if an appeal is
withdrawn an additional appeal period be required to give concerned
residents a second chance to file an appeal. He noted staff�s belief that
the recommendation to disallow the withdrawal of an appeal within 20 days
prior to the appeal hearing adequately balances the concerns and interests
of residents and the project applicant.
Mr. Forbes also informed the Council that staff was still in the process
of developing the scopes of work for the consultants that would be
retained to provide a review and analysis of the General Plan Update and
the associated development regulations, and will return on August 15, 2006
with a report.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment in opposition to the Zone Text Amendment were: Gary
Olson, representing the Chamber of Commerce; Larry Auzene, Jr.,
representing the Burbank Association of Realtors; Gary Graumann; Michael
Woodward, representing Warner Bros.; Mark Stebbeds; Mark Barton; David
Piroli; Rose Prouser; and, Yasmine Wolfe.
|
|
Staff response |
Mr. Forbes responded to public comment with regard to: the ability of the
Planning Board and Council Members to appeal actions as individuals or as
a body; the recusal requirement; clarified that the ordinance as proposed
related to the development review process and was not based on the Traffic
Intensity Measurement Standard; stated that the ordinance was not an
interim development control ordinance under State law but contains a
sunset provision after 10 months; and, elaborated on the potential for
amendments to the ordinance to extend or eliminate the sunset provision.
Mr. Barlow, City Attorney, stated that staff�s proposal is not adding any
new conflict of interest issues but is reflecting what is required under
State law. He also informed the Council that this type of ordinance did
not require a public hearing nor consideration by the Planning Board, and
was not subject to CEQA. He noted that the Council may opt to refer the
matter to the Planning Board for their review, but that such referral is
not required.
|
|
9:27 P.M.
Hearing
Closed
|
There being no further response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral
comment, the hearing was declared closed.
|
|
Council
Deliberations |
Mr. Golonski expressed support for adding discretion into the process
given the proposed thresholds for exemptions and the fact that there is
credit for demolition on existing uses. He stated that small commercial
property owners will not be impacted but only significant commercial
projects that have the potential to impact traffic in the community. He
suggested that the deadline for withdrawals coincide with the deadline to
apply or a one-time ten-day extension of the appeal period after an appeal
has been withdrawn be established. He also supported clarifying the
Council Member roles in the appeal process and waiving the appeal fee for
a Council Member acting as the appellant.
Mr. Vander Borght clarified that the ordinance will not halt development,
prevent renovation of older buildings, prevent small property owners from
adding onto their properties nor was it too onerous. He stated that the
ordinance will allow the City to review all projects that are significant
but not to a size that will trigger CEQA. He added that the City does not
currently have a mechanism for reviewing projects that are not within 150
feet of residential zones, to determine if they are compatible and what
their impacts are to the neighborhood and the entire City. He also
expressed support for clarification of the Council and Planning Board
Member roles in the appeal process as proposed by staff, and the one-time
appeal period extension after an appeal has been withdrawn. He requested
that as a separate action from the ordinance, staff reconsider the 75-day
timeline to prevent the process from being lengthy and onerous.
Mrs. Ramos also supported the one-time appeal period extension,
clarification of the Council Member roles in the appeal process and
community meetings for development review projects. She noted the need to
mitigate traffic impacts, and manage and balance growth, but suggested
referring the item to the Planning Board for their consideration.
Mr. Campbell also supported the one-time appeal period extension,
clarification of the Council Member roles in the appeal process and
waiving the appeal fee, increasing the notification radius to 1000 feet,
exemption for projects of up to 1000 square feet of development and the
request for revised plans. He stated that the intent of the ordinance was
to maintain the City�s quality of life and balanced growth. He expressed
concern with extending project timelines and supported receiving input
from individuals in the commercial and residential sectors of the
community on the matter.
Dr. Gordon agreed with the one-time appeal period extension and stated
that he would support an appeal process which would allow an individual
Council Member to call for an appeal, not act as the advocate but still
not forfeit the right to participate in the proceedings. He added that
typically, the Council Member will not have the financial conflict of
interest which is the only conflict of interest that should apply in terms
of participating in the decision-making process. He agreed with the need
for additional discretion on development review projects but expressed
concerns with the proposed ZTA�s ability to adequately address all traffic
impacts, its legal implications, the rapidity with which it was brought
back to the Council and suggested that the item be referred to the
Planning Board to provide an opportunity for all concerns to be addressed.
Mr. Barlow, City Attorney, clarified that if an individual Council Member
brings a matter to the Council, their reasons would have to be outlined
such that the applicant knows what to respond to. He stated that such a
situation raises a serious concern whether or not the Council Member then
makes the argument that could make him the appellant and decision maker.
He added that the applicant has a right to have a fair hearing and if the
decision maker is also the appellant, that raises concerns. He also added
that an individual is not only disqualified based on a financial conflict
of interest but on several other conflicts of interest, such as common law
conflict of interest, which essentially is bias. He stated that an
individual who is so biased for or against a project cannot be fair and
may not participate.
Mr. Campbell expressed concern with a Council Member acting as the
appellant and participating in the decision-making process and expressed
interest in obtaining an Attorney General Opinion regarding the
interpretation on the matter.
There was Council consensus to obtain the Attorney General�s Opinion.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Vander Borght and seconded by Mrs. Ramos that "the
following ordinance be introduced by title only and be passed to the
second reading with the following modifications: a one-time ten-day
extension if all appeals are withdrawn; in lieu of mailing additional
notices to the 1000-foot radius, notification be provided to individuals
who have requested to be notified, in addition to a newspaper publication
and information being placed on Channel 6; and, Council or Planning Board
Members be exempt from appeal fees:�
|
|
1702
Amending the BMC relating to Appeals and Dev. Review Process (ZTA
2006-008)
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF
THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPEALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCESS (Project No. 2006-008, Zone Text Amendment).
|
|
Ordinance Introduced |
The ordinance was introduced by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Gordon, Ramos, Vander Borght
and Campbell.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Motion
|
It was moved by Mr. Vander Borght and seconded by Mr. Golonski that "the
following ordinance be introduced by title only and be passed on to the
second reading.�
|
|
1702
Amending the BMC relating to Dev. Review Process (ZTA 2006-008)
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF
THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
(Project No. 2006-008, Zone Text Amendment).
|
|
|
Dr. Gordon stated that he would not be supporting this ordinance as it
would take away individual Council Members� rights to appeal on behalf of
their electors.
Mayor Campbell informed Dr. Gordon that such issue was part of the first
ordinance.
Dr. Gordon stated that the intention of his vote was not to support an
ordinance that includes limitations on a Council Member�s ability to
appeal.
|
|
Reconsideration of prior vote
|
Mr. Golonski requested reconsideration of the prior vote. |
|
1702
Amending the BMC relating to Appeals and Dev. Review Process (ZTA
2006-008)
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF
THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO APPEALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PROCESS (Project No. 2006-008, Zone Text Amendment).
|
|
Ordinance Introduced |
The ordinance was introduced by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Ramos, Vander Borght and
Campbell.
Noes: Council Member Gordon.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Further Council deliberation
|
Mayor Campbell requested for discussion on the motion regarding the second
ordinance.
Mrs. Ramos expressed her desire to refer the matter regarding the interim
ten-month ZTA to the Planning Board, to revisit the 1,000-square foot
exemption, the 50-trip threshold and other issues as deemed necessary.
|
|
1702
Amending the BMC relating to Dev. Review Process (ZTA 2006-008)
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF
THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
(Project No. 2006-008, Zone Text Amendment).
|
|
Ordinance Introduced |
The ordinance was introduced by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Gordon and Vander Borght.
Noes: Council Members Ramos and Campbell.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Reconsideration of vote
|
Dr. Gordon requested reconsideration of the prior vote and inquired as to
Mr. Campbell�s vote in opposition to the ordinance.
|
|
Additional Council Deliberation
|
In response to Dr. Gordon�s request, Mr. Campbell stated his desire for
the matter to be considered by the Planning Board.
Dr. Gordon inquired as to the projects currently in the development review
process. With the aid of an overhead, Mr. Forbes noted several projects
in the development review process and specifically discussed two projects
that are not residentially-adjacent and are subject to the ministerial
development review process, noting that both projects exceed the 50-trip
threshold. He explained that the projects include an addition to the
Media Studios North campus which is approximately 158,000 square feet of
office space and the proposed redevelopment of the former Menasco Site on
South San Fernando which is approximately 291,000 square feet of retail
space and 104,500 square feet of office space.
Mrs. Ramos inquired as to whether the Media Studios North project will
trigger discretionary approval and require a traffic study. Mr. Forbes
responded that a traffic study would be triggered by a project with a
discretionary application, within 150 feet of an R-1 Zone or deemed
regionally significant under CEQA, and noted that neither of the projects
would meet the above requirements. He added that the projects would be
approved if they met Code standards and the Council could only appeal the
projects if they are deemed non-compliant with the Code, for a review of
whether the projects meet the zoning standards for the M-2 Zone.
Mr. Campbell inquired as to the delay implications if the ordinance is
adopted. Mr. Forbes responded that since the projects generate over 50
trips, both projects would require a traffic study and a complete
environmental analysis under CEQA. He noted that the projects could be
delayed by several months.
|
|
1702
Amending the BMC relating to Dev. Review Process (ZTA 2006-008)
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF
THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
(Project No. 2006-008, Zone Text Amendment).
|
|
Reconsideration of vote
|
The ordinance was introduced by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Gordon, Ramos, Vander Borght
and Campbell.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Initial Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications
|
Mr. Campbell called for speakers for the initial open public comment
period of oral communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were: Susan Booker, from Charter Communications, on
the proposed AT&T Project Lightspeed; Mark Stebbeds, on the Zone Text
Amendment and the Charter review process; Don Elsmore, on Airport matters;
Sean Harkess, in support of his application to serve on the Magnolia Park
Community Advisory Committee; Fred Prouser, on resolutions, ordinances and
exhibits not being available on the internet; Mary and Esther Espinoza on
family matters; David Piroli, on Attorney General opinions and Airport
matters; and, Rose Prouser, on senior housing.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
Agenda Item
Oral Communications |
Mr. Campbell called for speakers for the agenda item oral communications
at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
Appearing to comment were: Don Elsmore, Graham Matthews, Ralph Herman and
Eden Rosen, on abandoned shopping carts; David Piroli, on the Utility
Users Tax, abandoned shopping carts and Airport issues; Mark Barton, on
abandoned shopping carts and electronic signage; and, Rose Prouser, on
electronic signage, abandoned shopping carts, internet billing, parking
lease agreement and Airport issues.
|
|
Staff
Response |
Members of the Council and staff responded to questions raised.
|
|
12:00 A.M.
Recess
|
The City Council meeting was recessed for the Redevelopment Agency and
Parking Authority meetings. The meeting was reconvened at 12:12 a.m. with
all members present for the consent calendar.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mrs. Ramos and seconded by Mr. Golonski that "the
following items on the consent calendar be approved as recommended.�
|
|
Minutes
Approved |
The minutes for the regular meetings of June 20, June 27 and July 4, 2006
were approved as submitted.
|
|
1212-1
Fleet Management System |
RESOLUTION NO. 27,280:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND CCG SYSTEMS FOR PURCHASE OF A FLEET
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
|
|
1007-1
Electrical Distribution Superintendent to Manager Electrical Distribution
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,281:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE
SPECIFICATION FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
SUPERINTENDENT (CTC No. 0283) TO MANAGER ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION (CTC No.
0541).
|
|
1500
Internet Billing
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,282:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE KUBRA ENTERPRISE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURBANK AND KUBRA DATA TRANSFER LTD.
|
|
1301-3
De Bell Clubhouse Replacement Project (BS No.
1153)
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,283:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO ADVERTISE FOR STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS (SOQ) FROM GENERAL
CONTRACTORS FOR THE DEBELL CLUBHOUSE REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
|
|
1402
Speed Control Devices on E. Tujunga Ave.
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,284:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL
YEAR 2006-2007 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $24,550 FOR
THE FUNDING OF SPEED CONTROL DEVICES ON TUJUNGA AVENUE BETWEEN SUNSET
CANYON DRIVE AND VIA MONTANA.
|
|
1005
BCEA
Employee Paid Member Contribution
|
RESOLUTION NO. 27,285:
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FOR PAYING AND
REPORTING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS.
|
|
Adopted |
The consent calendar was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Gordon, Ramos, Vander Borght
(except Resolution No. 27,285) and Campbell.
Noes: Council Member Vander Borght (Resolution No. 27,285 only)
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
403
Abandoned Shopping Carts
|
Mr. Hirsch, Assistant Community Development Director/License and Code
Services, gave a status update on the effectiveness of the new City of
Glendale Shopping Cart Containment Ordinance and information gathered from
community outreach efforts relative to the issue of abandoned shopping
carts in Burbank. He explained that the Glendale ordinance is based on a
Zone Text Amendment which requires that all businesses that use shopping
carts must have a containment system in place only if at any particular
time, there are more than five carts abandoned from that particular
business. He added that the ordinance does not dictate how containment is
to be achieved. He informed the Council that although Burbank is smaller
than Glendale in geographical size and population, it has a much larger
shopping cart population and the abandoned shopping cart problem is
greater in scope than it has been in Glendale. He added that through the
ordinance, Glendale has reduced its number of abandoned shopping carts by
95 percent.
Mr. Hirsch noted staff�s assessment that a similar ordinance would provide
comparable results and requested direction for staff to draft an abandoned
shopping cart containment ordinance which is based on a Zone Text
Amendment, to be forwarded to the Planning Board for their consideration
and recommendation.
Staff was directed to draft an abandoned shopping cart containment
ordinance which is based on a Zone Text Amendment, for the Planning
Board�s consideration and recommendation.
|
|
12:37 A.M.
Dr. Gordon Recused
|
Dr. Gordon left the Chamber at this time due to a potential conflict with
the following item.
|
|
12:38 A.M.
Mrs. Ramos left the Chamber
|
Mrs. Ramos left the Chamber at this time. |
|
203
Magnolia Park CAC
Appointments
|
Ms. Hamzoian, Administrative Assistant, Community Development Department,
requested the Council appoint new members to the Magnolia Park Community
Advisory Committee (CAC) from the qualified applicants. She stated that
as part of the City�s effort to revitalize the Magnolia Park area, the CAC
offers a balanced voice from residents and merchants to help encourage the
vitality of the Magnolia Park area. She added that since the appointment
of the three new members in February 2005, five Committee members have
resigned, consisting of three business persons, one resident, and one who
was a business person and a resident. She informed the Council that staff
has received five applications, two from residents and three from business
persons as follows: business/commercial property owners; Kurt Banks, Brad
Korb and Anthony Scuticchio; and, residents, Sean Harkess and Edward
Smith. She requested the Council appoint the above applicants to the
Magnolia Park CAC.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski, seconded by Mr. Vander Borght and carried
with Mrs. Ramos absent and Dr. Gordon recused that "the following
applicants be appointed to serve on the Magnolia Park Community Advisory
Committee: business/ commercial property owners; Kurt Banks, Brad Korb and
Anthony Scuticchio; and, residents, Sean Harkess and Edward Smith.�
|
|
12:39 A.M.
Dr. Gordon Returned to the Chamber
|
Dr. Gordon returned to the Chamber at this time |
|
12:40 A.M.
Mrs. Ramos Returned to the Chamber
|
Mrs. Ramos returned to the Chamber at this time. |
|
804-5
UUT Ordinance
|
Mr. Torrez, Financial Services Director, requested the Council adopt the
proposed ordinance that would remove obsolete references in the Telephone
Users Tax ordinance to the now-repealed Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Code rulings regarding definitions and exemptions. He stated that since
1969, the City has imposed Utility Users Tax (UUT), and specifically a
Telephone Users Tax, on every person using intrastate telephone
communication services. He added that in 2000, the City amended its
Telephone Users Tax ordinance to refer to definitions used by the Federal
Government in its IRS Code pertaining to the Federal Excise Tax on long
distance telephone services. He noted that in May 2006, the IRS repealed
the provisions in the Federal Excise Tax which Burbank�s ordinance
references, effective July 31, 2006. He explained that the City�s
ordinance therefore needs to be amended to remove the obsolete
references. He added that the changes also incorporate exemptions from
the UUT that were included in the Federal Code. He emphasized that the
proposed amendments do not impose any new tax, increase any tax, or revise
existing tax administration or calculation methodology.
Mr. Torrez informed the Council that the ordinance is proposed to be
adopted as an urgency ordinance, which would go into effect immediately
and before July 31, 2006, so that there is no loss in the City�s Telephone
Users Tax revenue. He also noted that staff provided a regular ordinance
for Council introduction in the event the ordinance is not adopted as an
urgency measure.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mrs. Ramos that "the
following ordinance be introduced and adopted.�
|
|
804-5
UUT Urgency
Ordinance
|
ORDINANCE NO. 3699:
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING
SECTIONS 14-1101 AND 14-1102 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE, TELEPHONE
USERS TAX.
|
|
Ordinance
Introduced and
Adopted |
The ordinance was introduced and adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Gordon, Ramos, Vander Borght
and Campbell.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Motion |
It was moved by Mr. Vander Borght and seconded by Mrs. Ramos that "the
following ordinance be introduced and read by title only and passed to the
second reading.�
|
|
804-5
UUT Ordinance
|
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING SECTIONS
14-1101 AND 14-1102 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE, TELEPHONE USERS TAX.
|
|
Ordinance
Introduced |
The ordinance was introduced by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Gordon, Ramos, Vander Borght
and Campbell.
Noes: Council Members None.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Ordinance
Submitted |
It was moved by Mr. Golonski and seconded by Mrs. Ramos that "Ordinance
No. 3700 be read for the second time by title only and be passed and
adopted.� The title to the following ordinance was read.�
|
|
506
Regulation of
Electronic Signs
(ZTA No. 2005-
126)
|
ORDINANCE NO. 3700:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF
THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE TO UPDATE SIGN REGULATIONS AND PROHIBIT
ELECTRONIC SIGNS (Project No. 2005-126, Zone Text Amendment).
|
|
Adopted |
The ordinance was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes: Council Members
Golonski, Ramos and Campbell.
Noes: Council Members Gordon and Vander Borght.
Absent: Council Members None.
|
|
Final Open
Public Comment
Period of Oral
Communications |
Mr. Campbell called for speakers for the final open public comment period
of oral communications at this time.
|
|
Citizen
Comment |
There was no response to the Mayor�s invitation for oral communications at
this time.
|
|
301-2
Memorial
Adjournment |
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned at 12:50 a.m. in memory of Helen Casey.
Margarita Campos,
CMC
City
Clerk
|
