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

Case No.: BC259852

Brief description and nature of case: Declaratory Relief.

2. 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.

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. Public Employee Appointment:

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54957

Title of Position: City Manager.

Brief description of position to be filled: Administrative Head of Burbank City Government.

e. Conference with Labor Negotiator:

Pursuant to Govt. Code �54957.6

Position Title of Unrepresented Employee: City Manager.

Summary of labor issues to be negotiated: Compensation and benefits.

6:30 P.M.

INVOCATION: Reverend Roby Correa, Magnolia Park United Methodist 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.

ANNOUNCEMENT: VOTE ON SATURDAY, APRIL 5, 2003.

ANNOUNCEMENT: COUNCIL MEETING DARK ON APRIL 8, 2003.

ANNOUNCEMENT: CESAR CHAVEZ DAY PROGRAM.

PRESENTATION: COMMITTEE FOR LIFELONG LEARNING.

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).

REPORTING ON CLOSED SESSION:

AIRPORT AUTHORITY MEETING REPORT:

1. 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 will be issues which were on the Airport Authority meeting agenda of March 17, 2003. 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.

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:

JOINT MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:

2. Suggested Guidelines for an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance:

The purpose of this report is to transmit to the Council and Redevelopment Agency Board (hereinafter referred to jointly as Agency) information regarding inclusionary housing options to assist the Agency in directing staff in drafting an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and in-lieu fee structure for future Agency consideration. Tonight's action follows the February 18, 2003 Agency meeting, at which the Agency-appointed Blue Ribbon Task Force on Affordable Housing (Task Force) set forth recommended affordable housing programs, including adoption of an Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to integrate affordable units within market rate developments. Following the presentation, staff was authorized to initiate steps to implement the Task Force�s recommendations and was further instructed to return with information about inclusionary housing as a prelude to drafting an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and in-lieu fee structure.

Inclusionary zoning or inclusionary housing is a requirement adopted by a host of local jurisdictions to reserve a specific percentage of residential units affordable for lower and moderate-income households in new residential developments. As of 1998, 75 California jurisdictions (generating 24,000 affordable units) have adopted local inclusionary housing ordinances that affect housing developed within a community based upon each jurisdiction's determination of its local housing needs. Interest in inclusionary housing ordinances continues unabated. As of January 2003, the number of ordinances Statewide increased to 105. Local examples include the City of Pasadena (adopted its ordinance in 2002), the cities of Los Angeles and Long Beach (currently undertaking inclusionary housing studies) and the City of Glendale (currently weighing the merits of an inclusionary housing program).

The principal purpose of inclusionary housing is to increase the supply of affordable housing in conjunction with market rate housing, which can be particularly effective in an "up" housing market. Inclusionary zoning also fosters greater economic integration, particularly important in a "job rich" and high housing cost market as Burbank to allow lower paid workers to find housing close to employment.

A review of inclusionary housing programs Statewide suggests these common characteristics:

• The most effective inclusionary programs are mandatory but allow flexibility in the manner in which requirements are met. The use of offsets (e.g., density bonus, reduced parking) reduces the cost to the developer, which serves to improve compliance.

• All programs are structured and implemented similarly, taking the form of a basic percentage requirement for inclusionary units, accompanying targeted income levels and compulsory lengths of affordability. Requirements are applicable to single-family and multi-family projects above a minimum size threshold, such as ten units.

• Inclusionary units develop affordable housing consistent with the character of the market rate units. While most programs allow affordable housing to meet different design standards than market rate housing, integrating affordable housing into new development can result in affordable housing indistinguishable from market units.

The primary argument against inclusionary housing is that the costs in making units affordable are simply passed on to the market rate owner in the form of higher sales prices or to the tenant in the form of increased rents. If housing demand is elastic (price sensitive), developer profit is reduced because costs cannot be passed on to the consumer. Critics also argue that an inclusionary housing policy, particularly because of in-lieu fees, significantly impacts land values.

It is interesting to note that Keyser Marston Associates (KMA) found that land values, while impacted in the short term, will return to current levels within approximately two and one-half to four years, subject to the amount of in-lieu fees paid by the developer. As land values appreciate and the inclusionary housing policy becomes "an entrenched component" in the entitlement process, the impacts created by the inclusionary housing policy will diminish in importance. KMA concludes that "At that point, the market will have absorbed the costs" associated with the policy, "and the achievable land prices/developer returns will have adjusted accordingly."

Inclusionary housing clearly has become a growing trend in California. As of January 2003, over 105 jurisdictions Statewide have adopted some form of a citywide inclusionary housing program. In a time in which housing has become increasingly less affordable, inclusionary housing can be an integral element of a jurisdiction's affordable housing strategy. Inclusionary housing creates mixed-income projects negating the potential sequestering of lower income populations into specific neighborhoods.

Issue: How many units in a project will be affordable and what will be the level of affordability?

Recommendation: Staff suggests the Agency give direction to analyze a requirement that (a) 15 percent of all newly constructed for-sale units will be affordable to low and moderate-income (LMI) households, and that (b) 15 percent of all newly constructed rental units will be affordable to lower-income (LI) households, one-half of which will be affordable to very low-income (VLI) households.

Issue: How long would the inclusionary units be required to be affordable?

Recommendation: Consistent with Agency practice, the period of affordability should extend in perpetuity (which may be defined, for example, as meaning the useful life of the building, the life of the land use controls or a finite period of time, typically 99 years), with resale provisions tied to the for-sale units. Staff will analyze providing flexibility with this requirement to accommodate individual cases of hardship. The development of inclusionary units would occur concurrently with the construction of market-rate units.

Issue: What projects could be exempt from the ordinance?

Recommendation: Residential projects comprising of less than ten units would be exempt from the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Additionally, residential developments begun before enactment of the ordinance (e.g., developer obtained a variance, conditional use permit or development review approval) would be exempt from the requirements of the ordinance.

Issue: Would a developer be afforded any options to meeting the inclusionary housing obligation on the site of the project?

Recommendation: Inclusionary housing obligations for a project can be satisfied through an in-lieu fee paid to an inclusionary housing trust fund based upon fees determined through a fee study, construction of units off-site or a land donation. The fee study will be subject to the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, commonly referred to as AB 1600. The purpose of the fee study is to determine, among other things, the following: (1) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; (2) whether there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed, and; (3) proportionality between the amount of the fee and the cost of providing additional affordable housing as proposed in the ordinance.

To encourage developers to include more VLI units or larger bedroom units (three or more bedrooms) for LI households, a credit would be provided based upon an affordability gap analysis that would determine the extent of credit warranted. In addition, when preparing an inclusionary ordinance, it is important to ensure consistency with the newly updated State density bonus law. This law requires that developers be given certain concessions in return for providing a set number of affordable housing units in their developments.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Agency approve the recommended guidelines described above and instruct staff to return with a draft Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that is responsive to provisions mandated under recent State law (AB 1866), either under one or separate ordinances, and an in-lieu fee structure. The next step will involve preparing an in-lieu fee study (Keyser Marston Associates to be retained) and eliciting public comment during the formation of a draft ordinance that will be submitted in approximately 180 days.

RECESS for the Redevelopment Agency and Public Financing Authority meetings.

RECONVENE for the City Council meeting.

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Items 3 through 7)

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. Cooperation agreement between the City and the Redevelopment Agency to Consider the transfer of Agency property to the City for the new Central Library project:

The City is planning the construction of a 65,000 square-foot library project on the block bounded by North Glenoaks Boulevard, North Third Street, East Olive Avenue and East Orange Grove Avenue. The library project is contingent upon the award of State Library Grant funds.

The block is approximately 154,704 square feet. The City owns approximately 92,404 square feet and the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) owns approximately 62,300 square feet. The library project will require approximately 50,921 square feet of the Agency�s property.

The proposed Cooperation Agreement indicates that, subject to the award of State grant funds to the City for the library project, the Agency will consider the conveyance of the necessary Agency property to the City for the project.

In order for the Agency to transfer the property to the City, it is necessary for the Agency to conduct a public hearing and make certain findings of benefit. Health and Safety Code Section 33445 authorizes redevelopment agencies, with the consent of the legislative body, to pay all or part of the value of the land and construction of buildings, facilities, structure or other publicly-owned improvements with findings of benefit. The findings are generally that the project will benefit the redevelopment agency or the immediate neighborhood and that there is no other reasonable means of financing the project.

The proposed Cooperation Agreement indicates that, upon notification by the City of the award of the State Library Grant funds, the Agency will take the necessary steps to transfer to the City the land required for the Central Library project. The agreement also authorizes the City to represent to the State, for purposes of the grant application, to certify the City has ownership and control of the Agency property for purposes of the library project.

The approval of the Cooperation Agreement will not have any fiscal impact to the City. The fiscal impact of the value of the Agency property transfer will be included in the future action to consider the conveyance of the property.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE CITY RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF CERTAIN LAND FOR THE CENTRAL LIBRARY.

4. RESOLUTION TO SUMMARILY VACATE A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AFFECTING THE WESTERLY 2.5 FEET OF THE 7.5 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 220 NORTH VALLEY STREET:

The applicant, John Safri, is requesting to vacate a portion of a Public Utility Easement (PUE) affecting the westerly 2.5 feet of the easterly 7.5 foot easement along the easterly boundary of the property located at 220 North Valley Street, for the purpose of future construction.

The proposed resolution will summarily vacate a portion of the existing 7.5 foot PUE. Both the Public Works Department and Burbank Water & Power have determined that the westerly 2.5 feet are not necessary, and that the remaining five-foot easement is sufficient. The proposed vacation has been submitted to all appropriate City departments and outside public utility companies. There are no public utilities in the area to be vacated and staff has not received any objections to the proposed vacation. It has been determined that the remaining 5-foot easement would be sufficient in size to contain the utilities and provide adequate access.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT AT 220 NORTH VALLEY STREET, BURBANK CALIFORNIA (V-352).

5. APPROVING THE FINAL CHANGE ORDER FOR BID SCHEDULE NO. 1121, BUENA VISTA STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT AND FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM:

Staff requests Council approval of the final change order for Bid Schedule No. 1121, Buena Vista Street Traffic Signal Interconnect and Fiber Optic Communication System project. In Fiscal Year 1999-2000, the Council approved a project in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget to expand the existing traffic signal communications system to three streets: Buena Vista Street, Burbank Boulevard, and Magnolia Boulevard. Bid Schedule No. 1121, installation of communications cable on Buena Vista Street, is the first phase of this program. The project scope for Bid Schedule No. 1121 included the installation of 17,000 linear feet (LF) of 3 inch conduit, the connection to existing traffic signal systems and the installation of ancillary underground equipment. The construction project was awarded to C. T. and F., Inc. for a total cost of $329,569. Construction began in October 2002 and was completed in January 2003.

The quantities of some bid items were increased due to minor modifications during construction and unforeseen conditions that impeded the progress of construction. These items increased the total construction cost of the project. The following items were incorporated into the project through change orders:

• The quantity of pull boxes was increased by one due to obstructions and soil conditions.

• The total footage of conduit was increased to accommodate additional splice cabinets. This additional conduit included 684 LF of 2 inch polyethylene conduit, 65 LF of 2 inch rigid metal conduit, and 255 LF of 3 inch rigid metal conduit.

• The conduit on Buena Vista Street from Alameda Avenue to Riverside Drive was relocated to avoid existing underground facilities.

The final change order resulted in an additional cost of $57,643.96, which increased the original contract of $329,569.00 by 17.5 percent. The change order was based on the unit costs included in the initial low bid. The total cost of the project with the change orders is $387,212.96. A total of $472,910 was budgeted and appropriated from the Gas Tax Fund for the completion of this project and covers both the original contract amount and the final change order.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE BUENA VISTA STREET TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT AND FIBER OPTIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, BID SCHEDULE NO. 1121.

6. REVISING THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER SALARIES IN BURBANK WATER AND POWER AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS:

This is the third in a series of adjustments to assist the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) and Public Works Departments to remain market competitive in compensation. This resolution adjusts the salaries of the Principal Civil Engineers in BWP and the Public Works Departments. In order to return to the previous salary relationship between Principal and Senior Civil Engineers in BWP, the Principal Civil Engineer/ BWP salary is proposed to be adjusted 11.71 percent from $8,039 to $8,980 per month effective July 1, 2002.

To equalize the salaries of the Principal Civil Engineer (Management) and Principal Civil Engineer (Unrepresented) in the Public Works Department, the salaries will be raised accordingly to $8,980 per month, or 16.58 percent and 6.79 percent respectively, effective July 1, 2002.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolutions entitled:

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE SALARY FOR PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER (CTC No. 5679).

2. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE SALARY FOR PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER / BWP (CTC No. 0680).

3. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE SALARY FOR PRINCIPAL CIVIL ENGINEER (CTC No. 0679).

7. REVISING THE UTILITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER SALARY IN THE BURBANK WATER AND POWER DEPARTMENT:

The Utility Telecommunication Manager was established on March 6, 2001, to be equal in pay to the Principal Electrical Engineer. This resolution adjusts the salary of the Utility Telecommunication Manager, to equate that of Principal Electrical Engineer. The Utility Telecommunication Manager salary is proposed to be adjusted 6.63 percent from the current $8,600 to $9,170 per month effective July 1, 2002.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK REVISING THE SALARY FOR UTILITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGER (CTC No. 0947).

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

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

8. PROPOSED METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2003 CALL FOR PROJECTS APPLICATION:

Staff is requesting authorization to submit an application package for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 2003 Call for Projects. This application process is a semi-annual opportunity for transportation agencies to request grant funds for transportation projects. Staff recommends that applications for the San Fernando Bikeway project, the Interstate 5/State Route 134 Traffic Management Program, and the Burbank-Glendale Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Integration System be submitted in this funding cycle. The City may also be asked to lend support for applications by the City of Los Angeles for an extension of the Los Angeles River Bikeway, and the Arroyo Verdugo Cities sub-region for a transit-related project. In awarding funds, the MTA looks to a project�s regional significance and effectiveness in improving overall mobility. These projects are compatible with the MTA�s goals as well as the City�s goals of maintaining high levels of service at intersections and promoting alternative transportation modes.

Any project successful in receiving the MTA grant funds would require the City to provide a 20 percent local match in order to accept the grant money for that project. This 20 percent local match is expected to be available from a combination of Proposition A and C local return funds as well as Transportation Impact Fees. Submittal of this grant application package does not commit the City to the identified projects. Any successful project would have to be brought back to the Council for authorization to accept funds and allocate the local match.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.

9. Approving Submittal of Application for Funds from the State of California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000; Certifying Project Budget, Local Funding Commitment, Supplemental Funds and Public Library Operation; Approving a Joint Use Agreement with the Burbank Unified School District:

On March 11, 2003, the Council adopted an ordinance approving the Civic Center Master Plan, Planned Development PD 2002-2. Part of this Master Plan included the development of a new two-story Central Library. The City is being presented an excellent opportunity for major funding contribution to complete this project via the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000 (Bond Act). This Bond Act authorizes library construction grant awards on a competitive basis to communities for new or expanded library facilities.

This Bond Act allocates $350 million to be distributed to public libraries in three rounds over a three-year period. The first round closed in June 2002, the second round will close on March 28, 2003, and the final round is scheduled to close in

January 2004. The maximum grant per project is $20 million. The State will fund 65 percent of the cost of constructing new or expanded public library facilities, while the grant applicant must identify a local funding match for the remaining 35 percent at the time of application.

The Bond Act requires each applicant to provide evidence of its ability to provide a 35 percent local match at the time of application. On November 26, 2002, the Council approved a resolution to place a general obligation bond measure (Measure L) on the February 25, 2003 ballot. Measure L stated that the $14,000,000 raised by the issuance of general obligation bonds would be used to provide the City�s 35 percent local match required for the State grant to construct its new Central Library. The remaining money from Measure L would be used to finance construction of a new Northwest Branch Library. Bonds would be issued contingent upon the City receiving the State grant.

On February 25, 2003, Measure L was approved by 67.9 percent of Burbank voters, receiving more than the required two-thirds majority vote. With the passage of Measure L, voters showed their support for the construction of a new Central Library and a new Northwest Branch Library. The City now can show proof of the ability to provide the required 35 percent local match.

Projected cost for the City�s proposed new 65,500 square foot Central Library, including the Library�s 55 percent pro-rata share for a five-level parking structure and common plaza area, is $33,379,963.

Library services have changed. Public access computers are a great example of a new library service need that was not envisioned when the present Central Library was constructed in 1964. Other major facility inadequacies that need to be addressed are:

• Insufficient parking for public and staff

• Space needs for technology

• Inadequate electrical capacity

• Inadequate space for programming needs

• Recurrent plumbing problems

• Accessibility issues

• Lack of student study areas

The State grant provides an excellent opportunity for the State to contribute 65 percent, or a maximum of $20,000,000, to the cost of constructing a new Central Library for the City. The 35 percent balance shall be funded by City resources. Since Burbank residents are already paying a portion of their property taxes to fund the Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond, applying for and receiving the State grant allows the community to benefit directly from this tax.

The requirements for submittal of the application to the State are quite detailed and have required extensive inter-departmental assistance. The State requires this information to determine the capability of the grantee to build and operate the facility for the next 40 years.

Once the grant has been successfully awarded to Burbank, it is estimated that the project will be completed by February 2007.

Under the Bond Act, first priority is given in the award of grant funds to joint use projects in which the public agency which operates the library and one or more school districts have entered into a cooperative agreement. The resolution before the Council also includes an Agreement for Library Cooperative Joint Use Between the City of Burbank and the Burbank Unified School District. The Agreement (Agreement) is part of the application packet, and is contingent upon the City receiving the grant from the State of California.

• Project SHARE (Student Homework and Research Enrichment) focuses on joint activities between the Library and the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) at critical times in a student�s school career, to reinforce reading and research skills. The program focuses on children entering the District (either through kindergarten or because they are new to the District), 4^th grade students beginning to do research, 8^th grade students preparing to enter high school, and the technology needs of all students. In addition, the program provides a Homework Center for students in elementary and middle schools, with homework assistance staff and software.

Under the terms of the Agreement, an Advisory Committee will be established to implement and evaluate the SHARE program. This Agreement may be modified to meet the spirit and intent of the original cooperative Agreement as well as the intent of the Bond Act. The City and the BUSD commit to providing joint use library services consistent with the intent of this Agreement and build into the project a mechanism for review and modification of the conditions of the Agreement. The commitment to provide services over the 20 year period is contingent upon the award of this grant funding.

Central Library costs are generally comprised of:

Total available funding resources, including the $20,000,000 maximum State grant is $29,664,000; $9,500.000 from the issuance of the General Obligation Bonds approved through Measure L; and the allowable $164,000 Architect-Engineer (A-E) Application Fee the City has already appropriated. In addition to the available funding sources, it�s important to note that the Bond Act also recognizes City-owned land as a viable project funding source. Therefore, the total project cost in real dollars can be reduced by the $4,382,267 in land value contribution.

The total increased recurring operating cost for the new Central Library is estimated at $662,413. There is also a one-time cost of $479,573. The current plan is to ramp up the additional necessary funding over a three year period, starting in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Corporate funding is another possible means of financing portions of the anticipated operating cost.

Based on Staff�s evaluation, the estimated cost for the new Central Library, including its 55 percent pro-rata cost of a five-level parking structure and common plaza area consistent with the previously approved Civic Center Master Plan, is $33,379,963; the sum of the City�s local match, excluding land value, is $9,664,000; and net of the State�s projected $20,000,000 contribution, the City will need to commit $3,715,963 in supplemental funds that are more than off-set by the combined $4,382,267 appraised land value.

Finally, please note that an additional $3,593,025 is required above and beyond the estimated Library project cost to address 45 percent of the parking structure and common plaza area cost. The ultimate disposition of the existing Central Library, including a potential future sale, represents a viable consideration to off-setting this real project cost to complete the five-level parking structure and common plaza area.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATION FOR FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2000; CERTIFYING PROJECT BUDGET, LOCAL FUNDING COMMITMENT, SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS AND PUBLIC LIBRARY OPERATION; APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH THE BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES:

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

This ordinance was introduced at the March 11, 2003 City Council meeting.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed ordinance entitled:

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).

11. 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.

This ordinance was introduced at the March 11, 2003 City Council meeting.

Recommendation:

Adoption of proposed ordinance entitled:

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).

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. In memory of John Brewster and Pete Bova, and continue to Tuesday, March 25, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. for a tour of the remodeled Fire Training Center, 1845 North Ontario Street.