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 HALL BASEMENT LUNCH ROOM/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. L2001-110412

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

2.  Name of Case: City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

Case No.: BC259852

Brief description and nature of case: Declaratory Relief.

3.  Name of Case: City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Board

Case No.: Court of Appeal No. B150912 [Superior Court No. BS060960]

Brief description and nature of case: Effluent limits for the water treatment.

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

6:30 P.M.

INVOCATION: Father Chuck Mitchell, St. Jude�s Episcopal Church.

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

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

ANNOUNCEMENT: WEDNESDAY NIGHT PRIME TIME PROGRAMS.

PROCLAMATION: MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY.

COUNCIL COMMENTS: (Including reporting on Council Committee Assignments)

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 HEARING:

1. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-17 WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2002-32 (524 SOUTH SAN FERNANDO):

August Bacchetta has applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct and operate an automobile lubrication service and detailing facility in conjunction with a restaurant at 524 South San Fernando Boulevard in the BCC-3 zone. The project consists of an automobile service building containing four service bays and an office/storage area totaling approximately 1,425 adjusted gross square feet. Two of the bays are designated for oil changes and lubrication and two of the bays are designated for automobile detailing. An 821 adjusted gross square foot restaurant with a 216 square foot outdoor dining area is proposed for the San Fernando Boulevard frontage. The owners of the subject property own and operate a car wash on the abutting property that was approved by a separate CUP in 1997. The proposed facility would complement the auto services offered by the car wash.

This project was originally approved by the Planning Board in December 2000 under CUP No. 2000-18. Staff recommended denial of the application at that time due to a belief that the proposed use would be incompatible with nearby residential properties and would be inconsistent with the goals of the Burbank Center Plan for redevelopment of the South San Fernando corridor. However, the Board voted at that time to approve the project. Because no building permits were issued and no extensions were requested before the expiration of the CUP, the permit expired in January 2002. The applicant wishes to pursue the project and has reapplied for the exact same project using the exact same plan drawings.

The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the subject application on November 18, 2002. The Board believed that the nature of the proposed use was such that it could not be designed or conditioned to any extent that would make it compatible with nearby residential uses, or with the stated land use policies and redevelopment goals for the neighborhood. The Board voted 4-1 to deny the application.

Staff concurs with the Board�s opinion that the proposed project would not be compatible with nearby residential uses, would have detrimental impacts on nearby properties, and would be inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Burbank Center Plan. It is staff�s and the Planning Board�s assessment that the six findings required for approval of a conditional use permit cannot be made for the proposed project.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council deny the applicant�s appeal and affirm the Planning Board�s decision to deny the subject application.

JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY:

2. ISSUANCE OF UP TO $102.2 MILLION IN BURBANK PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, 2003 SERIES A (GOLDEN STATE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT) AND $6 MILLION IN BURBANK PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS, 2003 SERIES B (SOUTH SAN FERNANDO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT):

Staff requests approval of the proposed resolutions, which authorize the issuance of two Burbank Public Financing Authority Revenue Bonds, 2003 Series A (Redevelopment Agency � Golden State and South San Fernando Projects) to finance redevelopment activities within these project areas, purchase existing 1993 outstanding bonds for the Golden State Project Area, fund debt service reserves, and pay costs of issuance incurred. Staff has identified several projects in relation to both the Golden State and South San Fernando Redevelopment Project Areas. This hearing was originally noticed for December 17, 2002. Due to timing issues and the need for structural considerations, staff requested this hearing be continued to this date.

The proposed financing mechanism is a purchase in lieu of redemption. This mechanism preserves the advantage of maintaining the existing 2024 maturity date related to the 1993 Golden State bonds while the current financial markets offer the advantage of low interest rates. The Authority will call the bonds and continue to hold them as would a bondholder, rather than a traditional defeasance on the December 1, 2003 call date. The collected debt service will be used for debt service for the 2003 revenue bonds. In the case of the Golden State bonds, the savings generated by the Authority will generate additional project funds, anticipated to be up to $4 million, which can be used for any City construction project.

The bonds have been structured so that the first principal payment will be made on December 1, 2003. The average annual gross debt service for the combined Golden State bonds approximate $7 million. The average annual gross debt service for South San Fernando bond approximates $347,000. The Agency�s obligations under the respective Loan Agreements are secured by tax increment of the Golden State Project Area and South San Fernando Project Area.

The current trustee for the 1993 Golden State Tax Allocation Bonds is BNY Western Trust Company. Due to the financial structure of the 2003 bond issuance through the Burbank Public Financing Authority, a determination has been made to remove BNY Western Trust and appoint Wells Fargo Bank as successor trustee.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the Financing Authority, Redevelopment Agency and City Council adopt the proposed resolutions related to the Golden State Project Bonds.

1. Adoption of proposed Burbank Public Financing Authority resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BURBANK PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS, APPROVING, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF CERTAIN FINANCING DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO (GOLDEN STATE PROJECT AREA).

2. Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF CERTAIN BOND FINANCING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE FINANCING AND REFINANCING OF REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN ITS GOLDEN STATE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO, REMOVING THE TRUSTEE APPOINTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AGENCY�S GOLDEN STATE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TAX ALLOCATION BONDS, 1993 SERIES A, APPOINTING A SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH REMOVAL AND APPOINTMENT (GOLDEN STATE PROJECT AREA).

3. Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE BURBANK PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AND APPROVING THE SALE THEREOF TO THE AUTHORITY (GOLDEN STATE PROJECT AREA).

Staff further recommends that the Financing Authority, Redevelopment Agency and the City Council adopt the proposed resolutions related to the South San Fernando Project Bonds.

4. Adoption of proposed Burbank Public Financing Authority resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BURBANK PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS, APPROVING, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF CERTAIN FINANCING DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO (SOUTH SAN FERNANDO PROJECT AREA).

5.  Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING EXECUTION OF CERTAIN BOND FINANCING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITHIN ITS SOUTH SAN FERNANDO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO (SOUTH SAN FERNANDO PROJECT AREA).

6. Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE BURBANK PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AND APPROVING THE SALE THEREOF TO THE AUTHORITY (SOUTH SAN FERNANDO PROJECT AREA).

REPORTING ON CLOSED SESSION:

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.

Printed on the videocassette cover should be the name of the speaker, the period of oral communication the tape is to be played, and the total running time of the segment. The Public Information Office is not responsible for "cueing up" tapes, rewinding tapes, or fast forwarding tapes. To prevent errors, there should be ten seconds of blank tape at the beginning and end of the segment to be played. Additionally, the speaker should provide the first sentence on the tape as the "in cue" and the last sentence as the "out cue".

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 by turning off or setting to vibrate all cellular telephones and pagers, 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).

Individuals standing in the Council Chamber will be required to take a seat. Also, no materials shall be placed in the aisles in order to keep the aisles open and passable. BMC �2-217(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:

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 3 and 4)

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.

3. RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE PEYTON-GRISMER REVITALIZATION PROJECT:

The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit for City Council (City) consideration the Relocation Plan (Plan) for the Peyton-Grismer Revitalization Project.

The Burbank Redevelopment Agency (Agency) and the Burbank Housing Authority (Authority) have been engaged in acquiring property for the Peyton-Grismer Revitalization Project (Project) located within the Peyton-Grismer focus neighborhood. The Project site is located north of State Highway 5, on the west side of Grismer Avenue, on a portion of the block bound generally by Elliott Drive to the north, Grismer Avenue to the east, Morgan Avenue produced easterly to Grismer Avenue to the south, and Keeler Street to the west.

The Agency acquired one of the two properties (1819 Grismer Avenue) comprising the Project and the Authority is undertaking actions to acquire the remaining property (1801-1815 Grismer Avenue) through eminent domain. In a concurrent action, Agency staff is negotiating terms of a Disposition and Development Agreement or DDA with the Burbank Housing Corporation (BHC) under which BHC is to acquire the two properties from the Agency, and then rehabilitate and operate a mixed-income, affordable housing development of approximately 60 residential units.

Acquiring and rehabilitating the Project will require the relocation of tenants and, accordingly, the necessity to prepare a Plan. As proposed, the Project entails the Agency's purchase of 87 rental units, 27 of which will be demolished by the time rehabilitation is completed, resulting in the displacement of 27 households. Under California Relocation Guidelines, a relocation plan is required subsequent to the initiation of negotiations and precedent to any action triggering displacement, in this instance, acquisition and rehabilitation actions. Consequently, the Agency's relocation consultants, Pacific Relocation Consultants (PRC), prepared a Draft Relocation Plan, which is the initial step in the tenant relocation process.

The Draft Relocation Plan provides information on the four following topics:

1. A description of the area and specific Project site;

2. An assessment of the relocation needs of residents expected to be displaced by the Project;

3. An assessment of the availability of replacement housing in Burbank; and

4. The steps and procedures to be undertaken to ensure a fair and equitable relocation program.

In conformance with State relocation guidelines, the Draft Relocation Plan was available for public review for 30 days before any relocation activities was initiated, including issuance of a 90-day notice to vacate by the Agency to any displacee household.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A RELOCATION PLAN FOR THE RELOCATION OF RESIDENTS AND OCCUPANTS DISPLACED AS A RESULT OF THE PEYTON GRISMER REVITALIZATION PROJECT.

4. ACCEPT A DONATION TO THE BURBANK FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROPRIATING THE DONATION TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT:

Ongoing changes in healthcare industry reimbursement rates, specifically emergency medicine, have forced modifications to the billing procedures. The City of Burbank currently meets all standards. In order to comply with future billing regulations, the Burbank Fire Department "Paramedic Ambulance Services" fee schedule, will need to be amended in a series of steps. The current Paramedic Ambulance Services Fee Schedule denotes a fee of $444 for basic transportation with no specialized services rendered and $528 for specialized services rendered. These rates are approximately $30 and $100 respectively, below the current maximum allowed rate for ambulance providers as outlined in the current "General Public Ambulance Rates" schedule established by Los Angeles County.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING ARTICLE I OF RESOLUTION NO. 26,258, THE BURBANK FEE RESOLUTION RELATING TO PARAMEDIC AMBULANCE SERVICE FEES.

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

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

5. CONTRIBUTION TO BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PROVIDENCE & BELLARMINE-JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOLS FOR THE ANNUAL CLOSE-UP PROGRAM & THE NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL MODEL UNITED NATIONS PROGRAM:

The purpose of this report is to receive City Council approval of a request the from Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) and Providence High School and Bellarmine-Jefferson High School to contribute to aid Burbank students for the annual Close-Up Program and the United Nations High School Program.

The Close-Up Program is an educational experience designed to acquaint high school students with the operation of the three branches (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) of the federal government. The Close-Up Program participants travel to Washington, D.C. for a weeklong look at the federal government. This program has served as a tremendous learning experience for students interested in a career in government as well as those interested in community and public service. Only participants that are both Burbank residents and attend a Burbank high school are eligible for the City�s contribution.

The City�s Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget appropriated $20,000 for the Close-Up Program and due to the events of September 11^th, funds from Fiscal Year 2001-2002 are also available for this year�s program participation. As in prior years, staff will ensure that checks will be made out to the students of the participating schools.

Recommendation:

It is staff�s recommendation that the City Council approve a contribution of up to $30,000, to participating Burbank Unified School District (Burbank and Burroughs High Schools) and Providence & Bellarmine-Jefferson High School students to partially fund the 2003 Close-Up Program and 2003 Model United Nations Program.

6. APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND WOLFF LANG CHRISTOPHER ARCHITECTS INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, SPECIALTY CONSULTANTS, AND ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH SAN FERNANDO PARK PROJECT, PHASE I:

Staff is requesting City Council approval of a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) between the City of Burbank and Wolff Lang Christopher Architects Inc. (WLC) to provide professional architectural design, specialty consultants, and engineering services for the South San Fernando Park (SSP-1) Project, Phase I.

For nearly ten years, Burbank has made the development of a community park in the southeast area of the City a top priority. Within the last five years, the City Council dedicated funds from various public sources toward the acquisition of property in the South San Fernando Boulevard area. In 1997, the area surrounding the proposed park site was designated by the City Council as the South San Fernando Redevelopment Project Area. The Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) took operational control of a community school from the County of Los Angeles in 1999. The BUSD has also been seeking a permanent home and location for its community school after the District�s former administrative office site was procured by the City of Burbank. The opportunity to combine a much-needed recreational amenity with the community school at a single location became apparent when the City started to assemble land parcels as part of developing its community park for residents of the southeast area.

The proposed conceptual plan for SSP-1 may include a two-story facility of approximately 16,000 square feet with an 8,000 square foot footprint. The building would be a joint use facility to provide the needs for the City of Burbank Youth Recreation Program and a BUSD community school. Other uses may include a proposed tot lot, basketball court, park open space, and parking. The SSP-1 site consists of approximately two acres on various parcels bordering San Fernando Boulevard to the north, Providencia Avenue to the west, and Cedar Avenue to the east.

A process to select an architect to provide comprehensive design, specialty consulting, and engineering services for SSP-1 commenced in July 2002. The selection process included the following steps.

• The City formed an Architect-Engineering (A-E) Selection Committee (Committee).

• City staff developed a Request for Proposal (RFP) to clearly establish rationale to limit RFP distribution.

• Due to the project�s importance, the Committee invited other individuals to participate in the presentations given by potential architectural firms. Those present included (committee members have an asterisk following their names):

Mary Alvord - Assistant City Manager

Bruce Feng - Public Works Director *

Michael Flad - Parks, Recreation & Community Services Director *

Mohammad Kashani-Jou - Burbank Unified School District*

Ruth Davidson-Guerra - Senior Redevelopment Project Manager *

Phillip Clifford - Capital Projects Manager *

Jan Bartolo � Recreation & Parks Asst. Director*

Howard Kuttler � Public Works Project Manager*

• Committee discussions were immediately held after completion of all presentations by potential architectural firms and included input from other invitees. The Committee�s majority agreed on the following ranking, based on the primary objective of meeting the City�s best interests:

1. WLC Architects

2. HMC Group

3. Charles Walton Associates Architects Inc.

4. The Albert Group Architects

• The Lump Sum Fee for each firm was subsequently opened, summarized, and analyzed by committee members Phillip Clifford, Capital Projects Manager, and Howard Kuttler, Public Works Project Manager, to ensure the scope was comprehensive and appropriately priced. A final meeting was held with the Committee to determine the most qualified architectural firm. At this final meeting, the Committee agreed to direct staff to initiate contract negotiations with WLC.

WLC is based in Rancho Cucamonga, California and is a ninety-two-person firm that specializes in working with government, institutional, educational, and non-profit organizations. WLC�s capabilities include programming, planning, design, project management, and construction administration on a wide range of facilities. WLC is also a green building expert. Recent projects from the WLC portfolio have been published in Architectural Record, Los Angeles Times, Engineering News Record, Building Design and Construction, and the Environmental Resource Guide. WLC is also recognized as one of the most respected firms in providing project management, quality assurance/quality control, and construction administration services.

The PSA to be used between the City and WLC and is similar to the PSA executed with WWCOT Architects for the Development and Community Services Building Project. The impetus behind its development was to improve the City�s control over the architect and impose a higher accountability level on its service delivery and overall performance. The PSA is specifically tailored to WLC as a provider of professional architectural services and increases the City�s authority and sole judgement over the quality level and/or acceptability of the architect�s services. The architect has specific responsibility for all costs to make the City whole as a direct consequence of potential architect errors and/or omissions.

WLC�s Scope of Services for the SSP-1 Project includes the following project phases:

Schematic/Conceptual Design Phase

Design Development Phase

Construction Document Phase

Bidding & Award Development Phase

Construction Administration & Post Occupancy Phase

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND WOLFF LANG CHRISTOPHER ARCHITECTS, INC. FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE SOUTH SAN FERNANDO PARK PROJECT, PHASE I.

7. APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-04:

Burbank submits an Annual Plan and applications for federal funds, including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), pursuant to regulations covering 24 CFR Part 91, Consolidated Submissions for Community Planning and Development Programs. Both the Annual Plan and the Final Statement describe activities/projects planned to accomplish goals and objectives stated in the Consolidated Plan (Fiscal Year [FY] 2003-08). CDBG funds are used for capital improvement projects, public services and program administration.

The Annual Plan and Final Statement is scheduled for formal submission in May 2003, with a new Consolidated Plan for 2003-08. However, CDBG Capital project requests are being accepted earlier for City approval to allow sufficient lead time for completing pre-development tasks, and thereby, permitting the City to meet United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD) timeliness requirements for CDBG expenditures. This advanced implementation process permits projects to go forward immediately when federal applications are approved and funds are budgeted by HUD.

By February 2003, the City will receive HUD�s entitlement allocation notice for FY 2003-04. Meanwhile, the CDBG capital amount is estimated at $1,071,850 based on last year�s funding. When the Annual Plan and Final Statement are approved in April 2003, capital project approvals will be amended to equal the actual entitlement and other fund sources. At that time, appropriations for program administration and public services will be approved at the statutory limits of 20 percent and 15 percent, respectively. CDBG funds are expected to total approximately $1.6 million.

Capital project fund availability and a request for proposals was advertised and noticed to departments/agencies on September 28 and October 2, 2002, with proposals accepted until October 25, 2002. Seven City departments/organizations submitted 17 projects totaling $2.35 million in requests.

The Community Development Goals Committee met on November 14, 2002, to review proposals and make its recommendation. The Committee recommended that all proposed projects be fully funded except those for the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department � License & Code Services Division (Code Enforcement). Public Works is recommended at $535,850 to be used for projects that can be expeditiously completed and meet HUD�s expenditure schedule. Committee members felt code enforcement is not an appropriate use of CDBG funds and should be funded with a more appropriate source of funds. One other request from the Burbank Temporary Aid Center was withdrawn due to planning and procedural concerns and the lack of time to appropriately make adjustments.

The City's Executive Staff reviewed the proposals on November 20, 2002, and approved projects on January 8, 2003. Their recommendation is to fund all proposal requests at the full amount with two exceptions: 1) Public Works Department projects are recommended at $463,566, utilizing priority projects at their discretion; and, 2) No funding recommendation for the Providencia Elementary School project. Recommendations of the Community Development Goals Committee and the Executive Staff are included in the staff report.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING CAPITAL PROJECT USES TO BE FUNDED WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2003-04 AND AUTHORIZING THEIR INCLUSION IN THE FY 2003-04 ANNUAL PLAN AND FINAL STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND PROJECTED USES OF FUNDS.

8. APPROVAL OF BID DOCUMENTS FOR REHABILITATION OF EARTHQUAKE DAMAGED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM � PHASE 6 (BID SCHEDULE NO. 1129) AND AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO BRH-GARVER, INC.:

Staff is requesting that the City Council approve Bid Schedule No. 1129 for Rehabilitation of Earthquake-Damaged Sanitary Sewer System (Phase 6) and award a construction contract to BRH-Garver, Inc. in the amount of $139,261.00.

On July 20, 1999, the City Council accepted a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Grant Acceleration Program (GAP) offer of $637,660 to repair the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant chlorine contact tank damaged during the Northridge earthquake. On February 11, 2002, the City submitted a reimbursement request of $484,202 for the completed chlorine contact tank repair project. As the GAP agreement allows the City to request that the remaining funds from the original project be used for an approved hazard mitigation project, the City also requested that the remaining $153,458 be used toward the additional sewer repairs and hazard mitigation work that comprise Phase 6. On March 6, 2002, FEMA approved this request.

Bid Schedule No. 1129 consists of lining of 1,217 linear feet of 10" diameter sanitary sewer pipe; reinstatement of 37 laterals; and lining of 2,158 linear feet of 15" diameter sanitary sewer pipe.

Bid Schedule No. 1129 was advertised in the Burbank Leader on October 5 and 9, 2002, and a bid opening was held on October 29, 2002. BRH-Garver, Inc submitted the lowest bid of $139,261.00, which is 12.3% less than the engineer�s estimate of $158,710. Staff found that BRH-Garver meets the required qualifications for performing the project and has satisfactorily completed many projects similar in scope to Bid Schedule No. 1129 for various cities in the area over the past few years.

Initially, the City will front the funds for this project from Fund 494 (Water Reclamation and Sewer Fund). FEMA/OES will reimburse the actual Phase 6 project costs following completion of the project and submittal of the claim request by the City.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AND ADOPTING CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND DETERMINING THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ACCEPTING THE BID, AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR THE REHABILITATION OF EARTHQUAKE-DAMAGED SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM � PHASE 6 PROJECT, BID SCHEDULE NO. 1129, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING AND APPROPRIATING GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $139,261 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE TO THE DISASTER RELIEF FUND SEWER REPAIR � PHASE 6.

9. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION � DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED AGENDA AND SELECTION OF LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES:

On December 4, 2002, the Burbank City Council participated in a Tri City/Airport meeting with City Council Members from the cities of Glendale and Pasadena and Airport Commissioners. At that meeting there was a consensus among the attendees to send a representative delegation to Washington D.C. to discuss issues pertaining to the Airport with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials. It was concluded that each agency would send two representatives and that each entity would use its own normal process for selecting those representatives.

This matter was agendized on the Burbank City Council�s December 17, 2002 meeting. At that meeting, Council Member Vander Borght requested that the item be again agendized for the purpose of discussing the topics to be discussed with the FAA, the possibility of inclusion of other community representatives from Burbank, and the methodology for their selection. At this time staff is concluding research on this matter and a staff report with a formal recommendation on this item will be available at the January 14, 2003 City Council meeting.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the City Council initiate discussion on this matter and direct staff as necessary.

RECONVENE the Redevelopment Agency and Public Financing Authority meetings for public comment.

THIRD PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Three minutes on any matter concerning the business of the City.)

This is the time for the Third Period of Oral Communications. Each speaker will be allowed a maximum of THREE minutes and may speak on any matter concerning the business of the City. However, any speaker that spoke during the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during the Third Period of Oral Communications.

For this segment, a GREEN card must be completed, indicating the matter to be discussed, and presented to the City Clerk.

COUNCIL AND STAFF RESPONSE TO THE THIRD PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

ADJOURNMENT.