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: City of Burbank v. Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority.

Case No.: BC259852

Brief description and nature of case: Declaratory Relief.

2.  Conference with Legal Counsel � Existing Litigation:

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(a)

Name of Case: Tracy Smith v. City of Burbank; Nickels Construction [Doe 2]

Case No.: EC033130

Brief Description and Nature of Case: Woman and her horse fell on Mariposa Bridge; Settlement approval.

3.  Conference with Legal Counsel � Existing Litigation:

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(a)

Name of Case: Jose Guevara v. City of Burbank.

Case No.: EC033729

Brief description and nature of case: Individual fell into sidewalk vault; settlement offer.

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

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(c)

Number of potential case(s): 2

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

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.9(b)(1)

Number of potential case(s): 2

d. Conference with Real Property Negotiator:

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54956.8

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

Property: 201 East Magnolia Boulevard � Media City Mall (the 41 acre site generally bounded by Magnolia Boulevard, I-5 Freeway, Burbank Boulevard and Third Street).

Party With Whom City is Negotiating: Crown Realty & Development Corporation.

Terms Under Negotiation: Amendment of Ground Lease and Disposition and Development Agreement.

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: Pastor Ron White, American Lutheran 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.

PRESENTATION: COMMENDATIONS TO FIREFIGHTERS.

PRESENTATION: CREST PROGRAM RECOGNITION.

PROCLAMATION: ARBOR 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. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:

1. OPPORTUNITY SITE NO. 2 (OLD POLICE BLOCK) BURBANK CIVIC PLAZA � CUSUMANO REAL ESTATE GROUP:

The purpose of this report is to present the information necessary for Redevelopment Agency Board and Council consideration of the proposed sale of Agency property and development entitlements for the Burbank Civic Plaza project. The specific land use applications for the 100,482 square foot (sf) commercial building include: Planned Development No. 2002-3; Development Review No. 2002-43; and the associated Development Agreement. The terms of the proposed sale of Agency-owned property are documented in the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).

The applicant is requesting approval to construct a commercial development. The project consists of a 96,000 gross sf building with 76,000 adjusted gross sf of office space and 12,000 adjusted gross sf of retail/restaurant/ commercial service space on the ground floor. The building is proposed to be placed at the corner of the lot along Olive Avenue and Third Street with an average height of 65 feet (five stories above grade). The ground level of the building is set back to allow pedestrian movement under the upper floors of the building. At the corner of Olive Avenue and Third Street, the ground level is set back 29 feet from Olive Avenue and 52 feet from Third Street. This allows a covered setback area that can be used as an outdoor caf� (approximately 850 sf). The building has vertical columns that are set back two feet from the property line creating an open colonnade for pedestrians. An open, landscaped plaza is adjacent to the building and a surface parking lot. The entrance to this lot is off of Olive Avenue and the lot provides access to the parking garage located beneath the building. A 600 sf loading area is proposed with an entrance from Third Street, separate from the tenant parking entrance from Olive Avenue.

The purpose of the Planned Development process is to provide an alternate process to accommodate unique developments for residential, commercial, professional, or other similar activities, including modified development standards which would create a desirable, functional and community environment under controlled conditions of a development plan. This commercial project certainly fits within this category, especially given its location in downtown Burbank. The project provides appropriate amenities given the location in the downtown and provides adequate public parking space for commercial uses on and near the subject site. The Planning Board considered this project on February 10, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Planned Development.

Inasmuch as the proposed project requires the Agency to sell property to the Developer, a DDA has been negotiated with the purpose of documenting the real estate transaction and outlining the roles and responsibilities of both the Agency and the Developer. Highlights of the proposed DDA include the following:

DEVELOPER RESPONSIBILITIES

• The Developer will acquire the site for $100;
• The Developer must develop the site in accordance with the City�s Planned Development No. 2002-3;
• The Developer will build a Class A, signature office building in accordance with the project entitlements;
• The Developer must complete the project in a timely manner as described in the Schedule of Performance;
• The Developer must submit evidence that sufficient equity capital and /or construction financing has been committed to fund 100 percent of the project cost;
• The Developer must pay prevailing wages to all contractors and subcontractors engaged to construct the project, in accordance to the Agency�s prevailing wage policy and other applicable laws; and,
• The Developer must pay all ad valorem real estate taxes and assessments on the site accruing after the close of escrow.

AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES

• The Agency must deliver a clean site, free of any known environmental contamination. However, the Developer has the right to independently test the soils and environmental conditions prior to accepting conveyance of the site. If hazardous conditions are discovered, either party may terminate the agreement unless the other party agrees to pay the remediation costs. Once escrow has closed on the site, the Developer must indemnify the Agency and City from any hazardous materials claims related to the site.
• The Agency must convey the site to the Developer cleared of any buildings, structures and active utilities;
• The Agency will fund the construction of required off-site improvements as defined in the DDA; and
• All persons shall have been relocated from the site, and the site must be conveyed free and clear of tenancies, occupancies and possessory right of any third parties.

Also included as a part of the DDA (and to be executed as a separate legal contract) is a parking lease for up to 190 parking spaces in the parking structure located at the corner of Angeleno Avenue and Third Street, behind the County Courthouse. To implement said parking lease, the Agency, City and Parking Authority must execute the proposed Cooperation Agreement. This agreement allows the Agency to execute the proposed parking lease with the Developer and calls for the lease revenues to flow to the Parking Authority to fund the operations and maintenance of the subject leased parking spaces (first) and other Downtown facilities as parking lease revenues are available (second). Highlights of the proposed parking lease follows.

PARKING LEASE

• The Agency through a Cooperation Agreement with the City and Parking Authority will lease 190 spaces for the express purposes of providing off-site parking for the Civic Plaza project;
• The proposed lease with the Developer is subordinate to the existing lease with the County of Los Angeles;
• The term shall commence on the date that the first space is allocated to the Developer, and will continue for up to 99 years;
• Rent will be credited for the first 19 months of the term. Then payments equal to 80 percent of the fair market rental value (for Downtown parking facilities) will be made beginning with the 20^th month of the term and continuing for five years thereafter; and
• After the initial five-year period, the Developer shall pay 90 percent of the Downtown fair market rental value.

In addition to the land sales revenue of $100, the City Centre Redevelopment Project Fund will realize property tax increment revenue. Based on the overall project value, the Project Area will collect tax increment revenue through 2021 (the last year the Agency can collect tax increment revenue) totaling roughly $2.6 million in nominal terms of $1.6 million in present value terms (using a 6 percent discount rate). Also the Agency will generate income from the proposed parking lease. That amount is estimated at just over $4.9 million (nominal terms) and $860,000 (present value terms). In total, the projected revenue associated with the Civic Plaza project is $7.5 million in nominal terms and $2.4 million in present value dollars.

If the proposed Burbank Civic Plaza project is approved on March 11, 2003, the Developer will proceed with design development drawings and construction plans. Groundbreaking is anticipated for late fall of 2003. Project construction is expected to take 16 to 18 months with a projected completion of mid-winter 2005.

The fiscal impacts of moving forward with the entire site right now are clearly balanced with the benefits of completing one of the key Downtown development opportunity sites. The approval of the Burbank Civic Plaza project, coupled with the approved Burbank Village Walk project, will implement the Agency�s vision for Opportunity Site No. 2. The complimentary components of the two projects will provide a seamless transition from the downtown village ambiance of San Fernando Boulevard to the Civic District beginning at Olive Avenue and Third Street. The proposed office development will provide additional daytime population, which will help support our downtown restaurants, shops and services. Lastly, the proposed project supports the goals of the City Centre Redevelopment Plan and will complete the Redevelopment Agency�s master-plan efforts in revitalizing the block.

Staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency Board and the Council adopt the proposed Ordinance and Resolution(s) approving the land use entitlements and sale of Agency property for the proposed Burbank Civic Plaza project.

Recommendation:

1. Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING TERMS AND PROVISIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AND CONSENTING TO THE SALE OF PROPERTY (BURBANK CIVIC PLAZA).

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-3 AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO (BURBANK CIVIC PLAZA, L.L.C., APPLICANT).

3. Adoption of propose Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND A PARKING LEASE BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND BURBANK CIVIC PLAZA LLC.; AND APPROVING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND THE AGENCY RELATING TO THE COURTHOUSE PARKING FACILITY (BURBANK CIVIC PLAZA).

CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING:

2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-2 W/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2002-42 (NEW CITY BUILDINGS IN CIVIC CENTER):

This is a proposal to establish a Planned Development for a master plan for the Civic Center Area. The project involves future construction of the following new City buildings: Development and Community Services Building (DCSB) (three stories; 66,000 square feet (sf)), New Central Library (two stories; 80,000 sf), New Parking Structure (five levels, including two underground, approximately 500 spaces), and Administrative Services Building (ASB) (two stories; 39,000 sf, with one level subterranean parking). The DCSB, New Central Library and Parking Structure are proposed to be located on the block bounded by Glenoaks Boulevard, Olive Avenue, Third Street, and Orange Grove Avenue. The ASB is proposed to be located on the property on the southwest corner of Orange Grove Avenue and Third Street (former Municipal Services Building site). The project also includes a public plaza (approximately 20,500 sf) at the northeast corner of Olive Avenue and Third Street. A Development Agreement and Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto have also been prepared for the project.

Recommendation:

1. Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN).

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 2002-2 AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED THERETO (CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLAN).

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:

HEARING (FOR PROPERTY OWNER ONLY):

3. HEARING ON RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO AUTHORIZE THE CONDEMNATION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY (461 N. VARNEY STREET):

The California Energy Commission gave final approval to the Magnolia Power Project (MPP) on March 5, 2003, with a condition that steps be taken to address noise impacts on two properties located at 421 North Moss Street and 461 North Varney Street, in the industrial area on the north side of Magnolia Boulevard across from the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) plant site. The condition requires the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) or the City to provide evidence, before construction starts, that these properties are no longer being used for residential purposes.

In the case of 421 North Moss Street, further investigation has revealed that the property was converted to a dog kennel in June 2002 and is no longer being used for residential purposes. A letter from the City setting forth this information is all that is needed to fulfill and meet the Energy Commission�s condition for this property. No action by the Council is necessary.

In the case of 461 North Varney Street, it appears the property continues to be used for residential purposes. The property consists of a 5,500 square foot (sf) lot improved with a 992 sf dwelling constructed in 1940. The fair market value as of February 2002 was $230,000. The owners of record are Victor E. and Mary L. Estrada. It is staff�s understanding that the property is occupied by a tenant.

Although the Energy Commission gave alternatives for meeting its condition, the only way to be certain that construction of the project will start on schedule is to authorize staff to proceed with the filing of a condemnation action. As is always the case, negotiations with the owners can continue after the action is filed. Adoption of a Resolution of Necessity is, of course, a prerequisite to filing a condemnation proceeding.

The fact that it is occupied as a residence will obligate the City to give appropriate notice and provide relocation assistance to the occupants, as required by State law.

This hearing serves to provide the owners with an opportunity to comment on the proposed action and constitutes the first step in the condemnation process. The issues before the Council are limited to the following:

1. That the public interest and necessity require the project.

2. That the project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

3. That the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.

4. That an offer required by Government Code Section 7267.2 was made to the owner of record.

The California Energy Commission is a "certified regulatory agency" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has conducted an environmental analysis in conjunction with its certification of the MPP pursuant to CEQA. The Energy Commission has concluded that the MPP, as mitigated, will not result in significant adverse effects on the environment. Under sections 15250 through 15253 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City may look to the Energy Commission�s decision as an "Environment Impact Report substitute" for CEQA purposes. No additional CEQA review is required.

There will be no direct fiscal impact to the City General Fund. The City will advance the necessary funds, all of which will be reimbursed by SCPPA.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK FINDING, DETERMINING AND RESOLVING THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVENIENCE, AND NECESSITY REQUIRE AND AUTHORIZE THE CONDEMNATION FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY (461 N. VARNEY STREET).

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 4 through 6)

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. MINUTES:

Approval of minutes for the regular meetings of December 10, December 17, December 24, December 31, 2002, and January 7, 2003.

Recommendation:

Approve as submitted.

5. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR A GRANT TO PURCHASE ALTERNATIVE FUEL SHUTTLE BUSES:

Staff requests authorization to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). This MOU is to authorize the MTA to act as a pass-through agent on behalf of the City to receive a Federal Congressional Earmark of $396,012 for the purchase of seven Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) shuttle buses. The City executed a similar MOU previously with the MTA to act as a pass-through agent for a $305,000 federal grant awarded through the 1997 Call for Projects for the purchase of the shuttle buses. Due to the comprehensive certification process, the City is not eligible to receive federal funding directly. This current MOU authorizes the MTA to act as a pass-through agent on the City�s behalf to administer the Congressional Earmark with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Staff believes that it is more cost effective for the MTA to administer the federal application on the City�s behalf than to devote extensive staff time to complete necessary FTA training, and cause further delays in procuring the vehicles.

The total project budget to purchase seven CNG shuttle buses, including the original Call for Projects Grant, the Congressional Earmark, and the two local matches, totals $980,015. Previous appropriations for this project total $703,500 in Proposition C Local Return Funds. Therefore, an appropriation of $276,515 of Proposition C Funds is needed from the Unappropriated Fund Balance to front the rest of the Congressional Earmark Funds.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE $276,515 AND TO ACCEPT A GRANT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING ALTERNATIVE FUELED BUSES.

6. DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS HELD ON FEBRUARY 25, 2003:

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 28 of the City Charter, the purpose of this report is to present the results of the Primary Nominating Election and Special Elections held on February 25, 2003 to the Council for approval.

A Primary Nominating Election was conducted in the City of Burbank on February 25, 2003 for the purpose of nominating or electing candidates for two members of the City Council and three members of the Board of Education. Consolidated with the Primary Nominating Election were special elections for voter consideration of Measure L, the Library Improvement Bond, and Measure M, the Advisory Vote on Mail Ballot Elections.

Following is the list of candidates who qualified for the ballot:

City Council Candidates:                Board of Education Candidates:

Lee J. Dunayer                             Saba Mokhtari

Vahe Hovanessian                         Paul Krekorian

Brian Malone                                 Dave L. Kemp

Michael Porco                               Lynne Gerred

Gary R. Bric                                  Ira Lippman

Esther Espinoza                             Lisa Clement

Todd Campbell                              Elena Hubbell

Jef Vander Borght                         Silva Terteryan-Reyes

Michael Bergfeld                           Ted Bunch

Kisa Kirkpatrick                             Roland Armstorff

                                                    Richard Raad

                                                    Mike McDonald

                                                    Steve Hulett

                                                    Larry Applebaum

                                                    William Birtell

Notice of the Election was given, voting precincts established, election officers appointed, and the supplies furnished. The votes cast were received and canvassed as required by law.

The canvass of the Election was completed on Friday, February 28, 2003 with the official results posted on March 3, 2003. The five-day protest period expires on March 7, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. No protests were received as of the printing of the agenda.

No candidate received a majority of the votes cast for Member of the City Council and as such the two seats for the City Council will be filled in the General Municipal Election to be held on April 8, 2003 by two of the following four candidates: Gary R. Bric, Brian Malone, Todd Campbell and Jef Vander Borght.

Dave L. Kemp was the only candidate to receive a majority of the votes cast for Member of the Board of Education and as such is duly elected to office for a full term of four years. The remaining two seats on the School Board will be filled in the General Municipal Election to be held on April 8, 2003 by two of the following four candidates: Larry Applebaum, Ted Bunch, Paul Krekorian, and Mike McDonald.

Measure L, the Library Improvement Bond, received 67.9 percent of the votes cast on the measure, achieving the required two-thirds voter approval; and Measure M, the advisory vote on all Mail Ballot Elections, received 63.6 percent of the votes cast on the measure.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE PRIMARY NOMINATING ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS HELD ON FEBRUARY 25, 2003.

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

REPORT TO COUNCIL:

7. PROPOSED APPOINTMENT OF TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE DEBELL CLUBHOUSE REPLACEMENT PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE:

Staff is requesting the Council appoint two Council Members to the Steering Committee for the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project.

A Steering Committee has been formed to guide the programming and design process for the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project. This project may also include the refurbishment and expansion of the driving range facility. Members of the Steering Committee include representatives from the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department, the Public Works Department, the Greens Committee, the head golf professional for DeBell, and the contract food service provider.

Due to the project�s high visibility and importance, Council representation on the project�s Steering Committee will balance the committee�s overall perspective and further ensure that commensurate programming, quality, and budgetary considerations meet City, community, and primary user expectations.

Appointment of two Council Member representatives to this Steering Committee will not have a fiscal impact on the City�s or project�s budget.

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Council appoint two Council Members to the Steering Committee for the DeBell Clubhouse Replacement Project.

RECONVENE the Redevelopment Agency meeting 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.

For a copy of the agenda and related staff reports,