This agenda contains a summary of each item of business which the Council may discuss or act on at this meeting.  The complete staff report and all other written documentation relating to each item on this agenda are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the reference desks at the three libraries and are available for public inspection and review. If you have any question about any matter on the agenda, please call the office of the City Clerk at (818) 238-5851.  This facility is disabled accessible.  Auxiliary aids and services are available for individuals with speech, vision or hearing impairments (48 hour notice is required).  Please contact the ADA Coordinator at (818) 238-5021 voice or (818) 238-5035 TDD with questions or concerns.

 

CLOSED SESSION ORAL COMMUNICATIONS IN COUNCIL CHAMBER:

Comments by the public on Closed Session items only.  These comments will be limited to three minutes.

 

For this segment, a PINK card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk.

 

CLOSED SESSION IN CITY ATTORNEY CONFERENCE ROOM:

 

a.      Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation:

         Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(a)

        

         1.      Name of Case:  In the matter of the application of Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority – Administrative (Variance) Hearing conducted by Cal Trans.

                  Case No.:  OAH No. L-9701269

Brief description and nature of case:  Administrative review of Airport noise variance standards.

 

         2.      Name of Case:  Raasch v. City of Burbank

         Case No.:  EC029907

         Brief description and nature of case:  Trip and fall.

 

         3.      Name of Case:  Sergio Pena vs. City of Burbank

                  Case Nos.:  EC029514 and EC02990

                  Brief description and nature of case:  Golf course injury.

 

b.      Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (City as possible plaintiff):

         Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(c)

         Number of potential case(s):  1

c.      Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (City as potential defendant):

         Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.9(b)(1)

         Number of potential case(s):  1

d.      Conference with Real Property Negotiator:

Pursuant to Govt. Code §54956.8

Agency Negotiator:  Community Development Director/Susan M. Georgino.

Property:  1000 South Flower Street.

         Parties With Whom City is Negotiating:  Alton Jennings, as the trustee of the Gladys M. Blanchard Trust.

         Terms Under Negotiation:  Purchase of real property.

e.      Conference with Labor Negotiator:

         Pursuant to Govt. Code §54957.6

         Name of the Agency Negotiator:  Management Services Director/John Nicoll

         Name of Organization Representing Employee:  International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Burbank Firefighters Association, and Burbank Firefighters Chief Officers Unit.

         Summary of Labor Issues to be Negotiated:  Contract for Fiscal Year 2001-2002.

 

 

When the Council reconvenes in open session, the Council may make any required disclosures regarding actions taken in Closed Session or adopt any appropriate resolutions concerning these matters.

 

 

       6:30 P.M.

 

 

INVOCATION: Reverend Tania Kleiman, Central Baptist Church.

                        The Courts have concluded that sectarian prayer as part of City Council meetings is not permitted under the Constitution.

 

FLAG SALUTE:                               Cadets from Burbank Squadron 63 of the Civil Air Patrol.

 

ROLL CALL:

 

ANNOUNCEMENT: WEDNESDAY NIGHT CALL-IN SHOWS.

 

ANNOUNCEMENT: OCTOBER 9, 2001 ALL-MAIL BALLOT ELECTION.

 

PROCLAMATION: NATIONAL EMBLEM CLUB WEEK.

 

PRESENTATION: JUDGE WEST PRESENTATION ON COURT REORGANIZATION.

 

 

COUNCIL COMMENTS:

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS:

At this time additional items to be considered at this meeting may be introduced.  As a general rule, the Council may not take action on any item which does not appear on this agenda.  However, the Council may act if an emergency situation exists or if the Council finds that a need to take action arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda.  Govt. Code §54954.2(b).

 

 

6:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS:

 

1.      ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2001-3 PROVIDING FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PUBLIC NOTICE AND APPEALS:

 

Zone Text Amendment No. 2001-3 proposes to accept multiple appeals to Discretionary Actions under one appeal number per action.  It will also provide consistent application forms for appeals.  It proposes to correct Code citation numbers and remove confusing language on public notice requirements, including correction of language to provide for appeal of a Discretionary Action by any interested party. This Zone Text Amendment also provides for public notice to occupants as well as property owners on all Discretionary Actions.  There is also a proposed amendment to Resolution No. 26,029, which clarifies the hearing process when multiple appeals have been consolidated into one hearing, and also corrects a minor typographical error in Section A of that Resolution. 

This Zone Text Amendment was initiated in response to the Planning Board’s request that an amendment to the Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) public notice requirements be drafted to include property owners and occupants/renters.  They also requested that the Code ensure that when one appeal is withdrawn, any other appeal issue is not closed out of the appeal process.

 

The fiscal impacts of the proposed Zone Text Amendment has been analyzed by the budget section of the Community Development Department.  The current budget for printing and postage is $20,000, and this accommodates all printing and postage for the Planning Division.  For several years, public notices have been sent to both property owners and occupants for large or controversial projects and that additional cost has been incorporated into the current budget.   Therefore, it is anticipated that any additional costs required to include occupants for the remaining projects would be minimal, and fit within the existing budget.

 

On July 23, 2001, the Planning Board unanimously recommended approval of Zone Text Amendment No. 2001-3, with suggestions for modification.  Suggested modifications included listing each appeal by subject and appellant, to ensure the status of those persons as “appellants of record”, as well as determining a means to assure commercial tenants as well as building owners would be noticed.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Introduction of proposed ordinance entitled:  (motion and voice vote only)

1.            AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF CHAPTERS 27 AND 31 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PUBLIC NOTICES AND APPEALS (ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2001-3).

 

Adoption of proposed resolutions entitled:

2.            A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2001-3.

 

         3.            A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 26,029 REGARDING TIME LIMITS FOR  

                        ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL.

 

 

2.      ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2001-2 PROVIDING HOURS ALLOWED FOR CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF NOISE CONTROL:

 

The proposed Zone Text Amendment No. 2001-2 is intended to codify a requirement that restricts the hours of construction, now imposed on a project-by-project basis. The proposed Zone Text Amendment limits construction within 500 feet of a residential zone to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday.  Construction will be prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays within 500 feet of a residential zone, except for home repairs and projects that do not require a building permit, such as public works projects.  Exceptions to these construction hours would require approval of the Director of the Community Development Department.

 

Zone Text Amendment No. 2001-2 was originally scheduled for a City Council hearing on July 24, 2001 but was continued to August 14, and again to September 11 to provide additional time for staff to receive comments from affected parties and ensure that the proposed changes were understood and supported by those parties.

 

Recommendation:

 

Introduction of proposed ordinance entitled:  (motion and voice vote only)

         1.            AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE SPECIFIC HOURS FOR CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION, EXCAVATION AND GRADING ACTIVITIES.

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

2.            A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 2001-2.

REPORTING ON CLOSED SESSION:

 

AIRPORT AUTHORITY MEETING REPORT:

 

3.      AIRPORT AUTHORITY COMMISSIONER REPORT:

 

At the request of the Burbank representatives to the Airport Authority, an oral report will be made to the City Council following each meeting of the Authority.

 

The main focus of this report by Airport Commissioner Charles Lombardo will be issues which were on the Airport Authority meeting agenda of September 4, 2001. Other Airport related issues may also be discussed during this presentation.

 

Recommendation:

 

Receive report.

 

 

FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:  (One minute on any matter concerning City Business.)

 

There are four segments of Oral Communications during the Council Meeting.  The first precedes the Closed Session items, the second and third segments precede the main part of the City Council’s business (but follow announcements and public hearings), and the fourth is at the end of the meeting following all other City business.

 

Closed Session.  During this period of oral communications, the public may comment only on items listed on the Closed Session Agenda(s).  A PINK card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk.  Comments will be limited to three minutes.

 

First Period of Oral Communications.  During this period of Oral Communications, the public may comment on any matter concerning City Business.  A BLUE card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk.  NOTE:  Any person speaking during this segment may not speak during the third period of Oral Communications. Comments will be limited to one minute.

 

Second Period of Oral Communications.  This segment of Oral Communications immediately follows the first period, but is limited to comments on agenda items for this meeting. For this segment, a YELLOW card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk. Comments will be limited to four minutes.

 

Third Period of Oral Communications.  This segment of oral communications follows the conclusion of agenda items at the end of the meeting.  The public may comment at this time on any matter concerning City Business.  NOTE:  Any member of the public speaking at the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during this segment.  For this segment, a GREEN card must be completed and presented to the City Clerk.  Comments will be limited to three minutes.

City Business.  City business is defined as any matter that is under the jurisdiction of the City Council.  Although other topics may be of interest to some people, if those topics are not under City Council jurisdiction, they are not City business and may not be discussed during Oral Communications.

 

Videotapes/Audiotapes.  Videotapes or audiotapes may be presented by any member of the public at any period of Oral Communications or at any public hearing.  Such tapes may not exceed the time limit of the applicable Oral Communications period or any public comment period during a public hearing.  The playing time for the tape shall be counted as part of the allowed speaking time of that member of the public during that period.

 

Videotapes must be delivered to the Public Information Office by no later than 10:00 a.m. on the morning of the Council meeting in a format compatible with the City’s video equipment.  Neither videotapes nor audiotapes will be reviewed for content or edited by the City prior to the meeting, but it is suggested that the tapes not include material that is slanderous, pornographic, demeaning to any person or group of people, an invasion of privacy of any person, or inclusive of material covered by copyright.

 

As with all Oral Communications, videotapes and audiotapes are limited to the subject matter jurisdiction of the City and may be declared out of order by the Mayor.

 

Disruptive Conduct.  The Council requests that you observe the order and decorum of our Council Chamber and that you refrain from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks.  Boisterous and disruptive behavior while the Council is in session, and the display of signs in a manner which violates the rights of others or prevents others from watching or fully participating in the Council meeting, is a violation of our Municipal Code and any person who engages in such conduct can be ordered to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor.

 

Once an individual is requested to leave the Council Chamber by the Mayor, that individual may not return to the Council Chamber for the remainder of the meeting.  BMC §2-216(b).

 

Your participation in City Council meetings is welcome and your courtesy will be appreciated.

 

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

 

 

SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:  (Four minutes on Agenda items only.)

 

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

 

 

RECESS for the Redevelopment Agency meeting.

 

RECONVENE for the City Council meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 4 through 15)

 

The following items may be enacted by one motion.  There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a Council Member so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent calendar and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. A roll call vote is required for the consent calendar.

 

4.      SELECTION OF LEAGUE VOTING DELEGATE FOR THE 2001 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONFERENCE AND APPROVAL OF PROPOSED LEAGUE CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS:

 

         The purpose of this report is to 1) authorize Council Member Ramos to be the City’s voting delegate for the 2001 League of California Cities conference, and 2) recommend approval of the proposed League Conference Resolutions for 2001.

 

The League of California Cities (League) annual conference in Sacramento falls on September 12-15 this calendar year.  Each year, the League has routinely proposed and voted upon a range of resolutions which are intended to further develop League policies with this year being no exception.  This year, the League is proposing nine separate resolutions for consideration.

 

Currently, the City’s voting delegate to the League is Vice Mayor David Laurell with Council Member Golonski serving as the alternate.  Because neither Council Member will be available to attend this year’s event, another City official needs to be selected as the City’s delegate in order for the City to cast its vote on these resolutions.  In this case, Council Member Ramos will be the only elected official from the City attending the conference through September 15, the day in which the voting officially takes place.  Mail-balloting is not an option as resolutions may be amended/changed during the conference.  As a result, staff recommends the Council select Council Member Ramos to be this year’s conference voting delegate.

 

As stated previously, there is currently a total of nine resolutions for consideration, including various revisions to the League’s bylaws.  Depending on the topic, each resolution has been referred to one of the League’s eight standing policy committees. Policy committees met July 19 or 20 to review proposed resolutions and to formulate preliminary recommendations prior to the conference.  Another meeting of policy committees will be held at the annual conference on Wednesday, September 12. During these hearings, any city official wishing to discuss any resolution will have an opportunity to address the policy committee concerned.  The General Resolutions Committee will meet on Friday, September 14 to consider the reports of the policy committees.  Then, the General Assembly will convene on Saturday, September 15, during the Annual Business Meeting to consider the report of the General Resolutions Committee and vote on the proposed resolutions.  Below is a listing of the resolutions.

 

         2001 Proposed League Resolutions

         Resolution #1 - Revising Bylaws for the League of California Cities

         Resolution #2 - Day Care Services for Children, Adults and Seniors

Resolution #3 - Excess Retirement System Assets and More Options for Employer Use of Those Assets

Resolution #4 - Flexibility in the Wastewater Permitting Process by California State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards as Allowed by Law

Resolution #5 - Modification of California Senate Bill 709 (Mandatory Penalties) and the Federal Clean Water Act Regarding Frivolous Citizen Lawsuits

         Resolution #6 - Incentives to Improve the Balance of Jobs and Housing in California

Resolution #7 - Supporting the Passage of a Ballot Measure to Stabilize and Reform Local Government Financing

         Resolution #8 - Return of Education Revenue Augmentation Fund monies to cities

         Resolution #9 - Telephone Area Codes

 

Although all these resolutions can be amended during the conference, staff has no objection in supporting the preliminary recommendations of the League’s policy committees with exception to Resolution #8.  Staff is in full support of the resolution that proposes the League request the State of California to return ERAF funds to California’s cities and would recommended approval of Resolution #8.

 

With respect to the bylaw amendments (Resolution #1), a summary sheet has been provided by the League.  Staff supports the proposed language pertaining to dues/finances which outlines a $5,000 dues cap and the requirement of Member City ratification for any future dues increase that exceeds consumer price index (CPI) or five percent.  The remaining changes to the bylaws include mainly procedural streamlining revisions along with changes that make language consistent in the existing bylaws.  Staff recommends supporting these bylaw changes.

 

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends that the City Council authorize Council Member Ramos to be the City’s voting delegate for the 2001 League of California Cities conference and recommend approval of the currently proposed League Conference Resolutions for 2001.

 

 

5.      MOTION TO RETURN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS:

 

Section 2-203(b) of the Burbank Municipal Code provides that Council meetings shall be held in the Council Chambers in City Hall unless the Council Chambers are determined by a vote of the Council to be inadequate or unavailable for a meeting. In such event, the Council may designate some other suitable place in the City for the conduct of such meetings.  Reasons for relocating Council meetings include, among other things, the remodeling of City Hall.  The City began an extensive remodeling project in the Council Chambers in May 2001.  Accordingly, on April 24, 2001, by its Resolution No. 25,983, the Council provided that after May 8, 2001, Council meetings would be held at the Burbank Fire Department Training Center at 1845 North Ontario Street until such date as determined by motion of the Council for the return of the Council meetings to the Council Chamber.

 

The remodeling project is close to completion and the City Council meetings will be able to be held in the Council Chamber beginning with the September 18^th Council meeting.  Therefore, it is recommended that the Council take action, by motion, providing that Council meetings shall return to the Council Chamber beginning with the September 18^th Council meeting.

 

         Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the Council approve a motion returning Council meetings to the Council Chamber beginning with the September 18^th Council meeting.

 

 

6.      APPROVAL AND FILING OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01:

 

This report requests the City Council to approve and file a  Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Amendment to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000-01 with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

 

On April 21, 2001, an Amendment to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds (FY 1998-99 and 1999-00) was published and transmitted to HUD transferring $526,822.54 in CDBG funds to FY 2000-01.  The amount transferred was added to project funds approved for a new neighborhood park project in the South San Fernando block area.  This action was approved by the Burbank City Council on April 17, 2001, Resolution No. 25,976, and increased the total available for the project to $782,816.54, but limited the use of funds to land acquisition/assembly only.  The fund transfer involved prior year projects originally approved for the Joslyn Adult Center, Compass Tree Park, and a Community School/Park project.

 

This Amendment proposes to expand the use of these funds to include costs related to actual acquisition without increasing the overall budget.  Specifically, the costs of land acquisition, relocation, environmental analysis/studies, and demolition would be encompassed in the total of $782,816.54.  Currently, the estimates for planned relocation and area environmental costs are $189,200, with the remaining balance left for acquisition and demolition costs.  Staff recommends approval of this change and requests the City Council to authorize the City to file a CDBG Amendment to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for FY 1998-99, 1999-00, and 2000-01.

 

Projects approved for CDBG funds must comply with federal regulations, which include the requirement that appropriate amendments be filed with HUD whenever the City decides not to carry out an activity described in the Final Statement, to carry

out an activity not previously described in the Final Statement, or to substantially change the purpose, scope, location or beneficiaries of an activity.

 

Prior to amending the City's Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, the City provides citizens with an opportunity to comment on proposed changes.  Notice of this proposed change was published August 11 and 15, 2001.  Written comments were accepted until August 27, 2001, with none being received.

 

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends that the City Council approve the filing of an Amendment to the Final Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds for Fiscal Year 1998, 1999 and 2000 Community Development Block Grant Funds.

 

 

7.      APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR CONTRACT PROBATION OFFICER:

 

The purpose of this report is for the City Council to consider approving a resolution that will serve to continue the Agreement with the Los Angeles County Probation Department to provide the services of a contract Probation Officer for the City of Burbank.  The Agreement with the County is for a one-year period and has been renewed annually since 1992.  The Probation Officer works directly with the Police Department Outreach Center and has proven to be a strong tool in the Department’s efforts to reduce gang activity, drug abuse, and juvenile related criminal activity. Utilizing asset forfeiture funds, the Police Department provides for one-half of the cost (approximately $50,000) of the Probation Officer, with the Probation Department funding the remaining costs.

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO PROVIDE GANG ALTERNATIVE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM SERVICES (GAPP).

 

 

8.     Amending the 2001-2002 Annual Budget for the Police Department to Include $148,236.69 in Asset Forfeiture Funds Returned to the City from the UNITED STATES Government:

 

Under the Federal Drug Asset Forfeiture Law, the City of Burbank has received funds from the State and Federal Government in the amount of $148,236.69, which represents Burbank’s share of drug cases involving the Burbank Police Department Narcotics Detail.  It is recommended that the City Council adopt this proposed resolution accepting and appropriating these funds in the amount of $148,236.69.

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK  AMENDING THE 2001-2002 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUGMENTING FUNDING FOR THE BURBANK POLICE DEPARTMENT'S NARCOTICS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS.

 

 

9.      ESTABLISHING THE TITLE AND CLASSIFICATION OF SENIOR RANGEMASTER/ ARMORER AND PRESCRIBING CLASSIFICATION CODE NUMBER, SALARY AND SPECIFICATION THEREOF:

 

The new classification of Senior Rangemaster/Armorer CTC No. 0840 was approved by the Civil Service Board on August 1, 2001.  The proposed classification will be Civil Service and will be subject to the Fair Labor Standard Act, expedited hiring, added to the City's Conflict of Interest Ordinance, and will be represented by the Burbank Management Association (BMA).

 

The Senior Rangemaster/Armorer classification will be established at salary schedule 63 M 1456 ($3,874 - $4,745).  This position will replace that of Rangemaster.  The difference between the salaries is $5,172 per year.  By agreement with the BMA, this classification and salary would be effective as of July 1, 2001.

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ESTABLISHING THE SPECIFICATION OF SENIOR RANGEMASTER/ARMORER (CTC NO. 0840).

 

 

10.    Establishment of Deputy Financial Services Director and other Personnel Changes:

 

Staff requests that the City Council approve the establishment of the Deputy Financial Services Director Position and related budget appropriation.

The vacancy of the Assistant Financial Services Director position led to an evaluation of the needs of the Financial Services Department.  Based on this evaluation it was determined that the following changes were warranted:

 

·        Establishment of a Deputy Financial Services Director to oversee Budget, Purchasing and Warehouse

·        Reuse of the Budget Manager position

·        Addition of a Management Intern to report to the Budget Manager

·        Transfer of the Receivables section to the Assistant Financial Services Director responsible for the accounting functions.

 

The methodology for Financial Services management salary levels was previously approved by the City Council on May 7, 1996. The Deputy Financial Services Director’s salary range will be established at 80 percent of the Director’s range.  The proposed classification will be exempt from Civil Service and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

 

         Recommendation:

 

         Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

         (4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ESTABLISHING THE TITLE AND CLASSIFICATION OF DEPUTY FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR (CTC NO. 0269) AND PRESCRIBING CLASSIFICATION CODE NUMBER, SALARY, AND SPECIFICATION THEREOF AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-2002 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE POSITION.

 

 

11.    AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO SIGN A FIVE-YEAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FOR WEED-SPRAYING SERVICES:

 

Staff is requesting City Council approval of a five-year contract with the Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures for seasonal weed spraying services to eradicate nuisance weeds along City streets and rights-of-way.

 

         Recommendation:

 

         Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A FIVE-YEAR WEED SPRAYING CONTRACT WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

 

 

12.    AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BURBANK WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT TO UNDERTAKE SHORT-TERM SALES AND PURCHASES OF UP TO FIVE YEARS IN DURATION FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO EFFECTIVELY CONDUCT ITS RETAIL AND WHOLESALE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES:

 

Staff is requesting City Council adoption of a proposed resolution authorizing the General Manager of the Burbank Water and Power Department (BWP) to make short-term sales and purchases of up to five years in duration for products and services necessary to effectively conduct its retail and wholesale resource management activities.  It provides for continuation of Resolution No. 25,599 that expires on September 21, 2001 which allows BWP to dispense with the City’s formal competitive bidding process and enter into agreements of up to two years in duration for the purchase and sale of products and services related to power and fuel without Council approval.

 

This issue was discussed with the BWP Advisory Board on September 6, 2001.

 

It is a standard business practice in the electric utility industry to buy and sell power on an “as needed” or “spot basis.”  These transactions are typically made during a short telephone negotiation and cannot be facilitated through the City’s normal bidding process. (The time between closing a deal and a transaction starting can be as short as a matter of minutes.) Such purchases comprise approximately one third of the Department’s power supply for native load and nearly 100 percent of wholesale transactions.

 

Substantial savings can be realized from the purchase of electric power products on a short-term basis from other organizations.  In addition, the opportunity exists for BWP to make a profit from the sale of electric power or transmission service to other organizations during periods of temporary surplus to BWP’s needs

 

Sales and purchases are typically made through “enabling agreements” with other utilities.  The agreements are usually written to last for years, but have 30-day cancellation terms should a party wish to terminate the agreement.  They allow organizations to sell each other products and under conditions which the parties find beneficial. The contracts allow the parties, at their discretion, to determine whether or not they should enter into particular transactions.  The frequency of the required transactions and the very short time frame before service must begin, makes it impractical to seek Council approval for them.

 

Burbank needs to be able to continue to purchase electric power, fuel for generation, emission credits, and other related products and services by means other than through formal bidding.  Approximately 25 percent of BWP’s total requirement for electric energy is routinely purchased through negotiations and informal bidding completed just prior to the time of the purchase.  Such purchases are entered into at times when suppliers make offers at prices that are advantageous to the Department. In order to facilitate the “deals”, the Department must accept the offers without delay or the opportunities to make such purchases would be lost.

   

If the Department is precluded from optimally and effectively accessing the spot market, it could incur additional power costs.  Further, BWP would face logistical impediments to getting long-term contracts in place in time to meet the cutoff date of the current authorization.

 

Any purchases made under the authority of the Resolution requested in this staff report would be included as part of an approved BWP budget.

 

         Recommendation:

 

         Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK, AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BURBANK WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT TO UNDERTAKE SHORT-TERM SALES AND PURCHASES OF UP TO FIVE YEARS IN DURATION FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES TO EFFECTIVELY CONDUCT ITS RETAIL AND WHOLESALE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.

 

 

13.    DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/OR TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS:

 

         On June 12, 2001, the City Council approved a resolution that authorized Burbank Water and Power (BWP) to proceed with the emergency procurement and installation of a new General Electric LM-6000 simple cycle combustion turbine  (combustion turbine).    As staff prepares the necessary documentation to finance the project and certain other components of the utility’s capital improvement program, there are several steps that need to take place over the next several weeks.  These steps include the adoption of a Reimbursement Resolution, the adoption of the Indenture, Preliminary Official Statement (disclosure document) and other legal documents, the presentation of the financing to the rating agencies, and the ultimate sale of bonds.  The Reimbursement Resolution is the first step, which provides the City with the right, but not the obligation, to reimburse itself should the financing be delayed for any reason.

 

The Reimbursement Resolution provides the flexibility for the City to be reimbursed from bond proceeds for expenditures occurring in advance of debt issuance for the combustion turbine, and certain other components of the utility’s capital improvement program.  The Resolution does not obligate the City to issue any indebtedness, but merely allows for the reimbursement of expenditures if the City, in its sole discretion, would like to reimburse itself.  This administrative action is required under the tax code if the City wants to preserve the right to reimburse itself for expenditures made prior to the actual closing of any financing.  Staff will return to the City Council for the adoption of a resolution that authorizes the City to proceed with a financing of the combustion turbine project and certain other components of the utility’s capital improvement program.

                       

         Recommendation:

 

         Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR MORE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN EXPENDITURES MADE AND/0R TO BE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

 

 

14.    APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT POLE AGREEMENT:

 

Staff requests City Council approval of the First Amendment to the Southern California Joint Pole Agreement. 

 

Very early in their histories, electric and communication utilities realized they could share a single pole rather than install two separate poles, thereby reducing installation expense as well as visual clutter.  The Southern California Joint Pole Committee (JPC) coordinates the common use of existing and planned pole line facilities, and operates under the Southern California Joint Pole Agreement, last dated January 1, 1998 (Joint Pole Agreement).  A central office maintains accurate records of all joint pole transactions among JPC members.

 

Burbank Water and Power (BWP) has about 12,000 power poles in Burbank, and most of them are owned jointly with at least one other entity.  In the most typical cases, BWP buys the pole, installs it and attaches the electrical lines. Communication companies then purchase or lease a suitable portion of the pole and attach their copper or fiber optic communication lines.

 

Since the 1990s, many new communications companies have been seeking routes for their lines.  Some chose to underground their lines, but many decided to purchase pole space and become joint owners with the utility.  It has become more important than ever to properly track pole attachments, ownership and participants.

 

As a matter of law, these companies must have registered with the California Public Utilities Commission as companies providing telephone or communication service. The First Amendment to the Joint Pole Agreement (Amendment) would eliminate any misunderstanding about what else is required to become a JPC Member. The Amendment would require the applying JPC Member to:

 

• Execute and file an application;

• Meet JPC requirements to the satisfaction of three-quarters of the shares voted by the JPC Administrative Board;

• Duly execute the Joint Pole Agreement pursuant to valid corporate action; and,

• Pay required membership fees.

 

The Amendment would also make clear that the effective date of membership does not begin until the applying JPC Member has complied with all of these requirements. Also, the Amendment requires that a new JPC Member must execute a separate signature page, which is to be attached to the Joint Pole Agreement.

 

         The fiscal impact is minimal.

 

         Recommendation:

 

         Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA JOINT POLE AGREEMENT.

 

 

15.    ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DESIGN-BUILD OF NOX ABATEMENT SYSTEMS FOR OLIVE 1 AND 2 POWER PLANTS:

 

This authorizes the issuance of a Request for Qualifications and Proposals for the design and construction of NOx abatement systems for the Olive 1 and 2 power plants.  These abatement systems are required to reduce the NOx emissions in accordance with recently passed South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations.

Over the years NOx emissions in the Los Angeles region have gone down significantly.  BWP emissions have reduced over the last 20 years by converting from fuel oil to natural gas as a local fuel source and then with reduced usage of local generation.

 

The power crisis has increased the use of all generation in the region.  The increased usage of generation in the Los Angeles area surprised many.  Last year the RECLAIM program was hit by record high demands for NOx credits.  This demand drove prices for NOx credits up by factors as large as one hundred times from a few cents per pound to $50 a pound.  As a result the SCAQMD proposed changes to the rules governing power plants.  These rules made it a requirement for power plants to install SCR and other NOx control methods by January 1, 2003 for boilers, and January 1, 2004 for combustion turbines.

 

There are eight vendors who have technologies that will do a portion of that emission reduction.  Those vendors and their related technology are shown below:

 

	FGR	Low NOx BURNER	OFA	SCR	FLGR
Benz Air Engineering	X			X
Babcock Borsig Power	X	X	X
CRI Catalyst				X
AUS Engineering Company	X	X
Forney Corp	X	X
Fossil Energy Research Corp.	X			X
Energy Systems Associates					X
Huntington Environmental Systems				X

         BWP NOx  Management Project Vendor List

 

 

BWP owner’s engineer, Bibb and Associates, has developed the technical approach that calls for a two step reduction.  The first step would be conducted this fiscal year for a cost of about $1 million.  The second step would be done next fiscal year at a cost of about $1.5 million.

 

In the first step, modifications of the boiler would be conducted.  This is called flue gas recirculation or FGR.  This is a process that reduces the production of NOx by changing the boiler and the related airflow associated with combustion in and around the boiler.

 

In the second step, an SCR is installed in the exhaust of the boiler.  This is a process where the NOx is removed before the NOx is allowed to leave the plant. 

 

Bibb and Associates has evaluated all of the potential vendor solutions applied to BWP Olive 1 and 2 boilers and has determined the cost to install these controls to be $2,500,000.

 

Without the NOx abatement, the plants would be expected to produce 168,000 to 337,000 pounds of NOx per year.  The NOx abatement will reduce the NOx emission to less than .15 pounds per MWh, or a range of 22,000 to 45,000 pounds per year. By installing this emission control equipment, BWP will be able to greatly reduce the amount of NOx generated in Burbank.

 

This project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act.  The lead agency will be the SCAQMD.  They will evaluate the environmental issues and assure compliance with their regulations.  An application will be sent to the SCAQMD after the vendor or vendors for the NOx abatement equipment has been selected.  The SCAQMD is aware of this project and is prepared to act upon receipt of this application.

 

This project has been budgeted in the current Fiscal Year 2001-02 budget.  It is BWP’s intent to include this project in the LM6000 bond financing.

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADVERTISE FOR REQUESTS FOR QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN, INSTALLATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF NOx ABATEMENT SYSTEMS FOR OLIVE NO. 1 AND NO. 2 POWER PLANTS.

 

END OF CONSENT CALENDAR           ***            ***            ***

 

 

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

 

16.   ADOPTION OF NEW 10-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN:

 

The purpose of this report is to request City Council adoption of the City’s new 10-Year Strategic Plan entitled Embarking on a New Millennium.

 

Burbank has made significant progress in the last decade.  The 10-Year Strategic Plan adopted in 1990 and the annual Work Programs that accompanied the plan have played a major role in those successes.  This new 10-Year Strategic Plan document, similar to the 1990 plan, identifies and defines strategic priorities and includes corresponding goals and sub-goals that are designed to direct future actions by the City government and the community to achieve the vision of the plan.

 

The City Council held a special study session on August 9, 2001 to review the newly proposed plan.  Staff has incorporated the recommended changes resulting from the study session and has refined the document’s layout.  Prior to this study session, the document was reviewed by each City department along with having been agendized and discussed by all Burbank Boards and Commissions.

 

The new 10-Year Strategic Plan, entitled Embarking on a New Millennium, will be the guiding instrument for the City's actions, programs and priorities over the next several years.  Per Council direction, staff will bring back regular updates to reflect staff's progress toward completion of the proposed goals and objectives, similar to that of the mid-year reporting for the annual work program documents.  At its August 14, 2001 meeting, the Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Work Program which encompasses many items that are intended to achieve the broader goals/objectives laid out in this new Strategic Plan.  Staff looks forward to discussing these strategic plan objectives with an eye toward meeting the City Council's expectations over the course of the next decade.

 

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the City’s new 10-Year Strategic Plan entitled Embarking on a New Millennium.  

17.    CHANDLER BOULEVARD BIKEWAY PROJECT UPDATE:

 

The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the Chandler Bikeway project. Because a report was recently given to Council describing the entire history of the project, this report describes only the recent progress on the project.

 

On July 31, 2001, staff reported an anticipated schedule for the Chandler Boulevard Bikeway Project to the Council.  Staff has been progressing on this project and the schedule remains relatively the same with construction anticipated to begin January 2002 and completed by July 2002.  The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has still not given final approval of the changes that the City has requested to the License Agreement, however, staff anticipates completing the License Agreement before Caltrans completes their review of the bikeway project.

 

Recommendation:

 

Note and file.

 

 

18.    FISCAL IMPACT OF EXCLUDING LIFELINE SERVICE CUSTOMERS FROM SCHEDULED ENERGY COST ADJUSTMENT CHARGE INCREASE:

 

During the August 28, 2001 Council meeting, staff informed Council of the need to increase the Energy Cost Adjustment Charge (ECAC) for all bills rendered on or after October 1, 2001.  Although the Council did not oppose this action, they did raise concerns about the effect of such an increase on those depending on a fixed income, particularly Lifeline Service customers.  The Council requested staff to examine the feasibility of excluding Lifeline Service customers from the scheduled ECAC increase.

 

The Lifeline Service Rate gives substantial discounts for kilowatt-hour (kWh) electric usage and has no monthly Customer Service Charge.  Customers eligible for the Lifeline Service Rate are those who are low income and either senior citizens or

disabled.  Among Burbank’s citizens, they are arguably the most prone to experiencing financial hardship from an increase in the electric rates.

 

Staff has concluded that excluding Lifeline Service customers from the ECAC increase is a viable option.  Excluding Lifeline Service customers from the ECAC increase (a revenue loss of about $62,000) can be afforded within the confines of the additional Public Benefits Program funding provided by the ECAC increase (about $98,000).

 

Excluding Lifeline Service customers from the October 1, 2001 ECAC increase would have a positive impact on Burbank’s most financially vulnerable customers, without creating any negative impact on other customers.

 

 

 

Recommendation:

 

Staff recommends that Lifeline Service customers be excluded from the Energy Cost Adjustment Charge increase scheduled for October 1, 2001.

 

 

19.    CONFIRMING THE RETENTION OF COPELAND, LOWERY & JACQUEZ TO MONITOR FEDERAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO AIRPORTS:

 

Staff has noted in recent months increased federal legislative activity seeking to interpose a federal regulatory scheme on what has previously been local land use decisions relating to airports.  Staff recognizes the need for a consistent and safe federal air transportation system, but are also concerned about the federal government usurping traditionally local powers.

In the context of the ongoing dispute with the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport, staff has discussed this issue with the Council in Closed Session and the Council authorized the City Attorney to employ a Washington consultant to monitor federal activities in this area, and to meet with federal legislators, staffs, and various agency representatives.  Pursuant to that authority, staff has retained the Washington firm of Copeland, Lowery & Jacquez, on a month-to-month basis.  This agreement was effective on July 16, 2001, at a retainer of $10,000 per month, and terminable by either the City or the firm upon 30 days notice.  The primary contact with the firm will be the name partner, Jim Copeland.

 

With potential litigation with the Airport still looming, some of what the firm provides will be of a confidential nature, but staff expects to obtain a great deal of useful information in the near future, and to use the considerable expertise of this firm to make useful contacts in the federal government.

 

         Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the Council confirm the retention of Copeland, Lowery & Jacquez.

21.    APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE EIGHTH CYCLE GRANT CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BURBANK, LA CANADA-FLINTRIDGE AND GLENDALE FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE GLENDALE ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER:

 

Staff is requesting City Council approval of an amendment to the May 2000 contract agreement among the cities of Burbank, Glendale and La Cañada-Flintridge to allow the continued use of the Glendale household hazardous waste facility known as the Environment Management Center (EMC) by Burbank residents.

On March 1, 2000, the California Integrated Waste Management Board awarded a $178,291 discretionary grant to the cities of Burbank, Glendale and La Cañada-Flintridge for residential household hazardous waste (HHW) collection at the Glendale EMC from March 1, 2000 to March 31, 2002.

 

Based on population, the City of Burbank received $57,053 (32 percent of total grant funding) toward the $50 per vehicle cost for an anticipated facility usage of 48 vehicles per month over the 25-month period. The original grant award also required all three cities to continue the inter-city HHW collection after the grant period (and funding) expired, and stipulated that the City of Burbank commit a minimum of $20,000 annually to continue the HHW program.

 

Burbank residents embraced the convenience of the nearby Glendale EMC facility, and with an average use of 85 vehicles per month (37 more vehicles per month than originally projected for the grant period), grant funding was exhausted 10 months earlier than anticipated. The convenience of the nearby tri-city HHW program also encourages residents to safely and properly dispose of their HHW, which further protects the environment by reducing the amount of HHW being illegally disposed of in the City’s landfill, alleys and streets. Additionally, staff has received feedback from residents that they appreciate not having to wait months and travel great distances to properly dispose of their HHW via the Los Angeles County round-up program.

 

With the original grant funding now exhausted, the City of Glendale is proposing to continue using the established $50 per vehicle fee for continued EMC use by Burbank residents. To promote the most efficient use of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001-2002 funds budgeted to allow Burbank residents to continue to use the Glendale EMC, Burbank Recycle Center staff will proactively: 

 

·           Encourage resident use of Los Angeles County roundups in nearby areas (North Hollywood, Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles Valley College) and yearly roundups in Burbank and Glendale funded by a landfill tax on all 88 cities within the County. 

·           Remind callers that the Burbank Recycle Center is open six days a week, and accepts such HHW as household batteries, oil, oil filters and anti-freeze.

·           Suggest alternative sites for some HHW (e.g., car batteries) on a daily basis.

·           Provide educational materials that explain alternatives to using household hazardous products. 

·           Encourage residents to make the best use of the Glendale EMC by taking the maximum amount of HHW in one trip whenever possible.

·           Research the feasibility of accepting paint (the most common HHW) at the Recycle Center, thereby reducing the number of Burbank-resident vehicle trips to the EMC.

·           Apply for other HHW grant funds as they become available.

 

Based on the anticipated usage of 33 vehicles per month originally projected, the original grant proposal estimated that the City of Burbank would have to expend $20,000 annually to continue the HHW program at the end of the grant period. At 85 vehicles per month, the actual program usage has been much higher than originally anticipated.

 

Limiting the City’s commitment to $20,000 would also limit EMC usage by Burbank residents to no more than 33 vehicles per month. Turning away more than 40 vehicles each month would likely discourage proper disposal of household hazardous waste, resulting in additional dumping in alleys, storm drains and dumpsters. 

 

The fee for Burbank-resident HHW disposal will remain at $50 per vehicle. Based on revised projected usage estimates of 75 vehicles per month, $45,000 for continued participation was approved in the Refuse Fund during the FY 2001-2002 budget process.

 

Burbank resident use of the Glendale EMC has proven to be a valuable and popular public service. The proposed amendment to the May 2000 HHW agreement will allow Burbank residents to continue to use the Glendale EMC for this fiscal year by deleting sections specifically applying to the Eighth Cycle grant, and incorporating billing procedures and fees, now that the grant funding is exhausted. The Recycle Center will be sent a monthly invoice detailing usage by Burbank residents.  The agreement shall remain in full force until June 30, 2002. 

 

         Recommendation:

 

         Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF BURBANK, GLENDALE, AND LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE FOR CONTINUED USE OF THE GLENDALE ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT CENTER.

 

 

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE:

 

22.    Burbank Entertainment Village (AMC Theatres) - Amended and Restated Planned Development:

 

On August 3, 1999, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency approved the proposed Burbank Entertainment Village project to create a vibrant mixed-use center hat would replace the existing AMC 14 on the 100 block of East Palm Avenue.  Over the last 15 years, the existing AMC 14 has acted as the main catalyst for the revitalization of the downtown, bringing millions of visitors to the area each year.

 

The two-phased project is proposed to be located on the easterly two-thirds of the block bounded by First Street, Magnolia Boulevard, the back of businesses along San Fernando Boulevard and Palm Avenue (Phase One), and the portion of the block where the existing AMC 14 is located (Phase Two).

The developer was initially to have obtained financing and started construction on the project in the Fall of 2000.  Unfortunately, it was at this time that the entire theater industry began a period of severe retrenchment with several theater company bankruptcies announced during the Summer and Fall of 2000.  While AMC has remained financially sound throughout this period, the problems facing the theater industry have made lenders very reluctant to provide construction financing.

 

AMC believed that the only way for the project to be financed was through its own direct source of funds. The previously approved Implementation Agreement to the Owner Participation Agreement allows AMC to fund the Phase One improvements directly by assigning the rights of the developer to the parent entity, AMC Inc., while allowing a future developer to construct the Phase Two improvements. 

 

The applicant desires a reduced project scope because of market trends and in an effort to improve the pedestrian flow of the development.  The development will continue to provide a 16-screen movie theater, however the size of the theater will be increased to 89,500 gross square feet, but will continue to provide 4,200 seats. The retail space will be reduced to 47,644 gross square feet, the restaurant space will be reduced to 26,868 gross square feet, and the health club will remain essentially the same at 45,000 gross square feet.  The revised project will not include an office component.

 

Nearly an entire level of restaurant and retail uses has been removed. The remaining restaurant pads will be located along First Street.   A total of 885 new parking spaces will be provided on the project site in two new multi-level parking structures.  A total of 256 spaces will be provided in the Phase One structure. An additional 629 parking spaces shall be provided in Phase Two. The 885 new parking spaces will be in addition to the existing 490 space parking structure located on Orange Grove Avenue (currently there are 505 spaces, however 15 will be lost during the construction of the new parking structure).  In total, the two-block area will have 1,375 parking spaces to serve the proposed project and existing adjacent uses.

 

The original project approval also contained a pedestrian plaza element on Palm Avenue which was conditionally vacated. The applicant does not desire a change to this element of the project and intends on creating a public plaza that will include extensive design features such as kiosks, street trees and colored/textured concrete. The only modification to the public plaza is that the stairway will be relocated towards First Street, increasing visual orientation and improved pedestrian connections directly with San Fernando Boulevard.

 

This ordinance was introduced at the August 28, 2001 City Council meeting.

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed ordinance entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 98-2 AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO (Burbank Entertainment Village).