Council Agenda - City of Burbank

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.

INVOCATION: Rabbi Richard Flom, Temple Emanuel of Burbank.

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

under the Constitution.

FLAG SALUTE:

ROLL CALL:

PRESENTATION CITIZEN RECOGNITION FOR RENDERING ASSISTANCE IN THE APPREHENSION OF A

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).

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.

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.

Staff is requesting Council authorization to file a grant application with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, for the Police Department Bulletproof Vest Program.

The City of Burbank has participated in this program since 1999 and has received approximately $21,750 to help off-set the cost of safety vests. On February 25, 2003, the Bureau of Justice Assistance requested that agencies desiring to receive bulletproof vest funding, submit a grant proposal. The deadline for application submissions is May 2, 2003.

The revenue anticipated from the grant will help to defray a portion of the General Fund cost for safety equipment. Once the application is submitted, the City should receive notice of the exact amount of its funding eligibility. At this time it is undetermined.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT BULLETPROOF VEST PROGRAM GRANT FROM THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE.

Staff is requesting that the Council accept the donation of a canine to the Burbank Police Department.

On November 5, 2002, the Police Department received a donation from NBC Studios and the Burbank Women�s Club of a new police canine, Caila. This dog was donated to replace Ugli, who died due to a stomach ailment. Caila is a three-year-old female black Belgian Malinois who came from the Netherlands in January 2003 and is fully trained for both patrol and narcotics work. There is no fiscal impact as a result of accepting this canine.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK ACCEPTING NBC STUDIOS AND THE BURBANK WOMEN�S CLUB�S DONATION OF A NEW POLICE CANINE NAMED CAILA.

In Spring 2001, the Council approved the City�s participation in the planning and development of a new electric power generating facility called the Magnolia Power Project (MPP) to be located on the existing Burbank Water and Power (BWP) plant site. Pursuant to that authorization, BWP joined with six other municipal utilities and filed an application for certification of the new facility with the California Energy Commission (CEC). The application was filed by the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA), a joint powers agency, on behalf of all the participants. SCPPA will own the facility, while BWP will manage its construction and operation. Construction of the project is scheduled to begin in June 2003.

Under state law, the CEC exercises broad authority in licensing new power plants with a capacity of 50 Mega Watts (MW) or more. One of the conditions of approval requires that steps be taken to address noise impacts on single-family residential property located in the industrial area on the north side of Magnolia Boulevard, across from the BWP plant site within a 1000 foot (ft) radius of the new MPP. The industrial area is zoned M-2. Properties are mainly improved with small industrial buildings, though a few have 1930�s- and 1940�s-vintage residential structures on site. Virtually all the residential structures have been converted to industrial or commercial uses.

As part of the licensing process for the MPP conducted by the CEC, SCPPA was required to perform noise studies to gauge the impacts of construction and operation of the MPP on surrounding neighborhoods within a 1000 ft radius. In the course of the noise studies conducted by SCPPA in early 2001 it came to light that one property within the 1000 ft radius, the property at 461 North Varney Street, was being used for single-family residential purposes. The CEC has determined as a condition of certification for the MPP that the residential use at 461 North Varney Street must cease before construction of the MPP can begin.

The subject residential property consists of a 5,500 square foot (sf) lot improved with a 992 sf dwelling constructed in 1940. The property was appraised in February 2002 at $230,000 and reappraised for purposes of obtaining an Order of Immediate Possession (OIP) at $320,000 as of March 2003. The owners of record are Victor E. and Mary L. Estrada.

The City offered to purchase the property for the initial appraised value of $230,000 in an offer letter dated February 21, 2003. In order to assure that BWP and SCPPA could satisfy the CEC requirements prior to the start of construction, the Council adopted a Resolution of Necessity on Tuesday, March 11, 2003, to begin eminent domain proceedings to acquire the property. However, negotiations continued after the filing of the condemnation case. The Estrada�s, on Tuesday, March 25, 2003, agreed to sell the property for $352,000 which is 10 percent above the City�s appraised value of $320,000.

The initial offer of $230,000 was made based upon an appraisal from February 2002. In the course of attempting to obtain an OIP, the Court required the City to update the appraised value. The original appraisal was based upon a determination by the City�s appraiser, Otis Hackett, that the highest and best use of the property as of February 2002 was land value under the current zoning (M-2) to be developed for an owner-user small industrial use. This conclusion was based upon a review of the sale of comparable properties as compared to the income generated by the current residential use. The appraiser concluded, as the basis for this determination of highest and best use, that the industrial use would yield the highest return to land under the then-current market conditions.

In the intervening year from February 2002 to March 2003, again, based upon a review of the relevant comparable sales, the appraiser determined that the residential market had improved so dramatically that the highest and best use (that use that would return the greatest economic benefit) had changed and is currently as a single-family home. This conclusion is based upon the increase in the value and rents for comparable single-family homes in the last year. The appraiser concluded that, according to the highest and best use as a single-family home, the property is now worth $320,000.

The revised offer was made to the Estrada�s within the condemnation filing, and they responded with a counteroffer 10 percent above the most recent appraisal which is $352,000. Staff considers an offer within 10 percent of the appraised value to be within an acceptable range of Fair Market Value, especially in a rising market, and that this amount is within a reasonable range of Fair Market Value. The Estrada�s have executed the proposed Acquisition Agreement.

There will be no ultimate fiscal impact to the City because the City�s expenditures for this acquisition will be reimbursed by SCPPA through an agreement to be approved at a later date, due to SCPPA�s meeting schedule and timing of its ability to approve an agreement. However, the City must pay the costs of the acquisition from City funds prior to reimbursement by SCCPA. Because of the necessity to enter into escrow as soon as possible and to eliminate the residential use in order to begin the MPP construction, staff is recommending that the City move forward with the acquisition using funds currently available.

The cost of this acquisition includes the purchase price of $352,000, closing costs estimated not to exceed one percent of the purchase price which is $3,520, plus relocation expenses estimated to be within a range of approximately $30,000 for relocation assistance payments, $3,000 for the City�s relocation consultant, and $10,000 for abatement and demolition. Excluding minimal costs for outside legal counsel in conjunction with filing the condemnation action and obtaining a stipulated judgment from the Court to complete the condemnation action, the costs to acquire the property are estimated to be approximately $397,750.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING AN ACQUISITION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURBANK AND VICTOR E. AND MARY L. ESTRADA FOR THE PURCHASE OF 461 N. VARNEY STREET.

Staff requests Council authorization to prepare and submit an application for a Groundwater Storage Project Construction Grant from the California Department of Water Resources. The proposed grant project, a connection to the Metropolitan Water District East Valley Feeder, would allow banking of groundwater in the San Fernando Basin through the Pacoima Spreading Grounds. This operation would help reduce Burbank's purchased water costs for the foreseeable future. The grant would pay 50 percent of the construction cost of the connection. Burbank would recover its costs in three to five years from the lower cost of purchased water.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR A GROUNDWATER STORAGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES.

The General Plan Land Use Element (Plan) is one of the major tools used to determine how Burbank will look and function in the years to come. This important document is currently being updated and it is critical that the vision that the community has established for itself be reflected in the Plan and that the goals and policies of the Plan implement that vision.

In conjunction with the Plan update, the Planning Division embarked on a year-long public outreach program designed to find out what the residents of Burbank want for their City, what their needs are, their goals and priorities.

Three public meetings were hosted by the Planning Division in early 2002. These meetings were designed to share information with residents and business owners and more importantly to listen to the residents� concerns and ideas. Videotapes of these meetings were replayed numerous times on Channel 6 for the benefit of residents that were unable to attend. Further outreach efforts included the use of utility bill inserts to spread the word of the Plan update process. In addition, flyers and cards were placed in libraries and at public counters to explain the update process and to inform the public that staff was anxious to hear what the residents had to say and to answer any questions they may have. The City�s website contains information about the Plan update and has had a variety of questionnaires to be answered on-line that are aimed at eliciting input from residents.

This staff report summarizes the results of the public outreach efforts and presents a vision of Burbank in the future, drawn from the input gathered, which will serve as the foundation for future plans and programs in the City. The core community values identified in this report will be shared with all City departments to ensure that all City plans and programs are consistent with the community goals and priorities.

�Burbank � a Big City in a Small Town� best represents the vision for Burbank in the future. This report details the core values extrapolated from resident input which will guide future development in Burbank. This vision is of a community that balances the conveniences and economic advantages of a big city while protecting the small town elements of Burbank which make it such a special place to live. These include: quality residential neighborhoods, sense of community, the schools, the quality municipal programs and services, and the responsiveness of the local government. The community expressed a desire for a variety of retail opportunities which include both large retail outlets and the smaller �mom and pop� stores that contribute to a neighborhood environment. Residents also expressed a need for a variety of housing types to accommodate all the needs in the community and especially noted the need for more affordable housing options.

Staff requests that the Council actively support the core values and endorse the vision of a balanced community identified in this report as a guide for staff in the preparation of the next update of the Land Use Element of the City�s General Plan.

Staff is requesting Council approval of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board�s (Board) recommendation to name the South San Fernando Park project in honor of Bud Ovrom.

During the Introduction of Additional Agenda Items portion of the March 4, 2003 Council meeting, Mayor Laurell requested that the naming of South San Fernando Park in honor of Bud Ovrom be placed on a future Council agenda. The process for the nomination and approval of naming public facilities is detailed in the Naming of Public Facilities Ordinance, Burbank Municipal Code (BMC) Section 2-1801 through 2-1804. In accordance with the above Ordinance, staff placed this request on the March 13, 2003 Board agenda for discussion and recommendation. It was the recommendation of a majority of the Board members at that meeting that staff develop a Naming of Public Facilities Application for the purpose of naming the South San Fernando Park project in honor of Bud Ovrom.

In accordance with the established process, the application was then submitted to the City Clerk, and placed on the April 10, 2003 agenda of the Board for additional discussion and recommendation to the Council. As part of the presentation to the Board, staff prepared and presented a Park Facility Naming Inventory for the purpose of providing some perspective on past facility naming requests and a memo to the Board dated April 7, 2003 outlining Mr. Ovrom�s efforts as they relate to the South San Fernando Park project.

As stated in BMC Section 2-1804, the Council may �recommend or approve the dedication, naming or renaming of a public facility for an individual where the reviewing body finds (1) the individual has made a significant contribution to Burbank, the State of California, the United States or the world, in any area including, but not limited to health, education, civic involvement, housing, public service, employment, or the arts; and (2) such contribution has contributed to the general well being of society. The individual, whether living or dead, need not be or have been a resident of Burbank, the State of California or the United States.� It is the opinion of the Board and staff that Mr. Ovrom meets the criteria established in the BMC and is eligible for public facility naming consideration. As outlined in the application and memo to the Board, Mr. Ovrom has had an extremely impressive impact on the South San Fernando Park project, the Park, Recreation and Community Services Department and the entire City of Burbank during his years as City Manager.

It should be noted that during the March 13, 2003 Board meeting staff was directed to proceed with application submittal on a 3-2 vote of the Board. The recommendation to approve naming the facility after Mr. Ovrom from the April 10, 2003 Board meeting was also the result of a 3-2 vote.

In summary, three issues of primary concern were introduced by the dissenting Board members. First, it was the feeling of two Board members that while Mr. Ovrom�s contributions to the Department and the South San Fernando Park project were significant, Mr. Ovrom was a paid employee of the City of Burbank and was compensated for his efforts. Second, it was the feeling of the dissenting voters that perhaps a facility that transcends departmental lines and was not exclusively a Park, Recreation and Community Services facility would be more appropriate given Mr. Ovrom�s city-wide impact. And, third, comments were made concerning the appropriateness of naming a facility after a person who is still living. While none of these three issues preclude facility naming, and it was the majority opinion of the Board to recommend naming the South San Fernando Park project in honor of Mr. Ovrom, staff has included the above summary of the dissenting opinion in an effort to equally and fairly present the views of the Board and staff.

As outlined in the Naming of Facilities Ordinance, �The Council�s decision is final and not subject to review.�

It is the recommendation of the Park, Recreation and Community Services Board and staff that the Council approve a Facility Naming Request for the purpose of naming the South San Fernando Park project in honor of Bud Ovrom.

The purpose of this report is to provide background information to the Council to aid in the discussion of Channel 6 program policies.

At the March 25, 2003 Council meeting, Mayor Laurell raised concerns about the decision-making process for programming cablecast on Channel 6. The concerns were in three specific areas: 1) the process for deciding which program meets the criteria for broadcast on Channel 6; 2) the process for deciding who is eligible to host a program; and, 3) the process for selecting what messages are posted to the Channel 6 bulletin board.

Current Process for Selecting Channel 6 Programming

Certain programming, by virtue of being open and noticed public meetings, are broadcast automatically. These programs include the weekly City Council meetings and a variety of Board and Commission meetings. These programs can be planned and scheduled in advance; most take place in the Council Chamber, and therefore are relatively low-cost to produce.

In another category are programs that have been created by the Public Information Office (PIO) for the purpose of educating or providing information to Burbank residents including: Burbank Magazine, Burbank Council News, and Burbank Close-Up. Traditionally, the Mayor has had the option of hosting a show, and recent mayors have taken advantage of this opportunity. However, such shows that are taped, or cablecast live outside of the Council Chamber setting, are inherently more costly.

When new programming ideas come to the attention of the PIO, they are aggregated and taken to the PIO Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is currently composed of two Council Members appointed by the entire Council and the Assistant City Manager. The Public Information Officer serves as staff to the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee may approve programming requests, deny requests, or conditionally approve a request, subject to the alteration of some aspect of the programming. One fundamental criteria that the Subcommittee has followed is that the subject matter must be rooted in the City of Burbank, or have a relevancy to Burbank citizens that transcends the fact that it was produced elsewhere. In addition, all programming is subject to review in light of Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) standards and approved or rejected in accordance with those principles. Program costs are also taken into account in discussions about new programming to Channel 6.

The PIO Subcommittee has traditionally asked that the host of a program airing on Channel 6 be a City employee or an elected official within the City. Where concerns have been raised in the past, and the issue could not be resolved in the PIO Subcommittee, the issue has gone to the full Council for policy direction. Program hosts have traditionally served without additional compensation of any kind. Occasional reporters and correspondents also serve without pay.

Messages from City departments have traditionally been accepted on Channel 6 as have been messages about events in the City that are directly or indirectly sponsored by the City. Messages from profit making and nonprofit organization that lack City sponsorship have traditionally not been accepted. Message requests that do not obviously fall into the above categories are reviewed by the PIO Subcommittee for a decision.

Upon review, it is staff�s determination that the current PIO practices for Channel 6, although not formalized or adopted by the Council, provide a broad-based spectrum of educational, informational, and specialized programming to Burbank residents. Staff recommends that the Council open deliberations on the current cablecast practices of the PIO and provide specific direction on the issues of program selection, hosting responsibilities, and the posting of messages to the Channel 6 Bulletin Board. In addition, due to the status of the budget reduction scenarios, staff is requesting that the Council consider providing direction to staff to explore cost recovery for the production of any additional program requests beyond current service levels from internal departmental clients and external public and private entities, as necessary.

This report provides an outline of the current practices of the PIO in regard to programming selection, hosting responsibilities, and bulletin board messages. Any funds related to continuing the current practices are already appropriated in the PIO�s cost center budget. At this time, however, it should be noted that the City is facing a critical budget shortfall including the potential reduction of staff positions and that the PIO is recommending freezing a vacant staff position in order to meet its 10 percent reduction scenario, in anticipation that no new obligations for programming will be assumed. Any additional programming above and beyond the current schedule would have to be presented to the Council for additional fund appropriation or policy direction.

It is staff�s recommendation that the Council adopt the current practices of the PIO as formal policy. Staff requests that the Council also provide specific direction on changes in program selection, hosting responsibilities, the posting of messages to the Channel 6 Bulletin Board policies, as necessary. In addition, due to the status of the budget reduction scenarios, staff is requesting that the Council consider providing direction for staff to explore cost recovery for the production of programs from internal departmental clients and external public and private parties should they exceed current programming levels.

During Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03, the City completed negotiations with several unions and made provisions to the Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) of these unions. Two provisions for the Burbank Firefighters Association (BFFA) and Burbank Firefighters Chief Officers Unit (BFF-COU) MOUs are the implementation of the three percent at 55 safety retirement formula and Option 2 Death Benefit. The Burbank Police Officers Association (BPOA) also negotiated a provision for the Option 2 Death Benefit. All miscellaneous employees likewise have the provision to increase the Survivor Benefit from level 1 to level 4 as well as the provision for the Option 2 Death Benefit. It is the intent of the City to have the Resolution of Intention adopted by the Council, and the first reading of the ordinance amending the contract with the Public Employees� Retirement System (PERS) on April 29, 2003 and the final adoption of the ordinance on May 27, 2003. These provisions would be effective on July 1, 2003.

The increase to Level 4 Survival Benefit is funded from surplus assets which can only be used for this benefit. The employer rate for this year will be at zero percent. The three percent at 55 retirement benefit and Option 2 Death Benefit for Fire members increases the City�s PERS employer rate from 3.058 percent to 10.812 percent. The Option 2 Death Benefit for Police members increases the City�s PERS employer rate from 8.872 percent to 8.910 percent. For all other members, the Option 2 Death Benefit will be at no additional cost to the City.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK PROVIDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES� RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF BURBANK.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES� RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY OF BURBANK.

This report requests that the Council approve a zone text amendment (ZTA) that would create new shopping center definition and zoning use category that would be conditionally permitted in the Airport zone, and permitted in various commercial zones throughout the City. This ZTA was applied for in conjunction with an application to redevelop the former Costco site at 10950 Sherman Way with a multiple tenant commercial shopping center. Because retail stores are currently prohibited in the Airport zone, the applicant applied for a ZTA to change retail uses from prohibited to conditionally permitted in the Airport zone to allow the project to go forward.

The Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the redevelopment of the former Costco site and the associated ZTA in November 2002. The Board approved all aspects of the conditional use permit (CUP) and ZTA, pending approval of the ZTA by the Council. The CUP does not become effective until the Council approves the subject ZTA. If the Council denies the subject application, retail and other commercial uses would continue to be prohibited in the Airport zone and the proposed project could not go forward. In March 2003, the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission held a public hearing and voted unanimously that the proposed ZTA is consistent with the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Plan.

Staff recommends that a new use category of shopping center be defined and added to the zoning use list. Shopping centers would be permitted in most commercial zones in the City, consistent with the zones in which retail store/sales are permitted. The permitted and conditionally permitted uses within a shopping center would be similar to the uses in the zone in which the shopping center is located with the exception of the Airport zone, where the permitted and conditionally permitted uses would be similar to the C-3 commercial zone.

It is staff�s conclusion that the proposed ZTA is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Airport zone, and that the nine findings required to add a use to a list of permitted uses can be made for the proposed ZTA.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE BURBANK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SHOPPING CENTERS (Zone Text Amendment No. 2002-1).

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.

ADJOURNMENT. To Thursday, May 1, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. for the Council Reorganization Meeting and Saturday, May 3, 2003 for the Council Goal Setting Workshop � Airport Hilton Hotel Gala Room.

COUNCIL AGENDA - CITY OF BURBANK

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003
6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER � 275 EAST OLIVE AVENUE

Current Process for Selecting Channel 6 Programming

COUNCIL AGENDA - CITY OF BURBANK

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER � 275 EAST OLIVE AVENUE

Current Process for Selecting Channel 6 Programming

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003
6:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER � 275 EAST OLIVE AVENUE