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:             PLANNING BOARD AND YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD VACANCIES.

 

RECOGNITION:                    BURBANK LEADERSHIP GRADUATES.

 

 

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 June 2, 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 MEETINGS WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY:

 

2.      REIMBURSEMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FROM CITY LAND SALE PROCEEDS � FIVE POINTS REALIGNMENT PROJECT:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide information to the Council and Redevelopment Agency Board (Agency) to authorize: 1) the execution of a Cooperation Agreement (Co-Op) between the Agency and the City of Burbank for the reimbursement of $1,366,775 to the Agency by the City from land sale proceeds; 2) transfer of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) grant of $632,000 to the City Centre Redevelopment Project Area (City Centre Project); and 3) making an appropriation from the Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Golden State unappropriated fund balance of $237,099 to complete Phase II of the Five Points Realignment Project.

 

On June 13, 2000, the City and the Agency entered into a Co-Op authorizing the Agency to assist the City with Phase II and III of the Five Points Realignment Project.  The Agency and the City found the design of the Five Points improvements to be of benefit to the Golden State Redevelopment Project Area, and that there was no other reasonable means of financing the City�s public improvements other than through Agency funding.

 

The total project costs were estimated at the time of the Co-Op to be $19,131,988 (including an estimated $3,363,869 for contingency).  Funding sources for the project included Development Impact Fees, State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) grant funding, Burbank Water and Power Undergrounding funds, and funds from the Agency�s Golden State Redevelopment Project Area. The Agency�s Golden State contribution totaled $8,279,146, inclusive of the following:

 

�           $170,020 for the design of the public improvements (Resolution No. 25,730);

�           Approximately $2,894,973 for the acquisition of the State Farm and Animal Hospital properties; and

�           $5,214,153 for Phase II and III (Resolution R-1976 and Resolution No. 25,771).

 

On February 13, 2001, the City and Agency entered into a Co-Op authorizing the transfer of Agency land (State Farm and Animal Hospital Properties) to the City, valued at $2,894,973.  The City had limited resources to pay the Agency, and will therefore transfer a $632,000 MTA grant to the Agency for the cost of the properties. The grant will be received for right-of-way acquisition and the construction of the Five Points Realignment Project.  The Co-Op states that when the grant funds are received by the City, the Financial Services Director will take the necessary steps to transfer the funds to the appropriate Agency budget.  Agency staff is working with MTA staff to finalize documentation necessary to receive the $632,000 grant.

 

Several remnant parcels were created from the Five Points Realignment Project, including property that was not necessary for the widening of the Burbank Boulevard bridge.  In May 2002, the Council and Agency entered into a Co-op for the exchange of Agency and City land in order to facilitate the construction of the Caltrans State Route (SR) 134 Freeway ramp project, and to relocate and construct the Hollywood Way and Alameda Avenue distribution sub-stations.  The City transferred the Five Points remnants to the Agency, and the Agency transferred the three-unit apartment building at 3510 West Alameda Avenue and the 14-unit apartment building at 3516 West Alameda Avenue to the City for the project.  The West Alameda properties have a combined square footage of 25,794 square feet and were valued at approximately $1,120,000.  The remnants from the Five Points project have a combined 44,435 square feet and were valued at approximately $1,741,920.  The City made the conveyance in order to reduce the Agency�s prior deficit incurred for acquiring the State Farm and Animal Hospital properties for the Five Points project, and to allow future development of the remnants if possible. 

 

After deducting the $632,000 MTA grant, and the value of the remnant properties conveyed to the Agency (a $1,741,920 value) as stated above, the total Agency contribution to the Five Points Realignment Project is reduced from $8,279,146 to $5,905,226.  Furthermore, the Agency has received $1,160,480 from the MTA to reimburse construction management and construction costs, further reducing the total Agency contribution to a net contribution of $4,850,600.

 

In November 2000, the City entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Zelman Retail Partners, Inc. (Zelman) for the sale of 52,488 square feet of remnant property to be incorporated into the Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) parking lot.  Zelman purchased the remnant City property with the intent to assign the property rights to The Price Company.  The City received the appraised value of $25 dollars per square foot for the property for a total of $1,366,775 and in December 2000, Costco took possession of the site. The Assignment and Assumption Agreement between Zelman and Costco was executed in September 2001.

 

At the time of the Co-Op in June 2000, one of the findings made was that there was no other reasonable way of funding the project.  Since the Co-Op, the City has received $1,366,775 from the sale of remnant property to Zelman.  The remaining remnant parcels have been transferred to the Agency for reimbursement for the Agency�s contribution to acquire the State Farm and Animal Hospital properties (Co-Op approved in May 2002); however, there still remains an Agency net contribution of $4,850,600 for the project.

 

Staff recommends that the City reimburse the Agency the $1,366,775 received in land sale proceeds to help off-set the remaining Agency net contribution of $4,850,600.  The recommended reimbursement will reduce the Agency�s net contribution to the project to $3,483,825.  The Agency further recommends the City transfer $1,366,775 to the City Centre Project Fund which currently does not have funds other than those to repay ongoing debt obligations.  To further assist the City Centre Project, Agency staff also recommends the $632,000 MTA grant be deposited to the City Centre Project Fund instead of the Golden State Redevelopment Project Area Fund which is the Agency�s funding source for the Five Points Realignment Project.

 

Finally, a final invoice for Phase II relating to aid-in-construction activities for water service was received in the amount of $237,099. Staff recommends the Council/Agency approve the budget amendment/appropriation of $237,099 from the Golden State Redevelopment Project Area to pay this invoice, and close out Phase II of the Five Points Realignment Project.  The appropriation would be made from FY 2002-03 Golden State unappropriated fund balance.

 

Recommendation:

 

1.      Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK RELATING TO THE FIVE POINTS REALIGNMENT PROJECT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,366,775.

 

2.      Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING A COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AGENCY AND THE CITY OF BURBANK RELATING TO THE FIVE POINTS REALIGNMENT PROJECT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,366,775.

 

3.      Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

(4/5 vote required)

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE AGENCY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $237,099. (Phase II of Five Points Project).

 

4.      Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING THE AGENCY PAYMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE CITY AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 ANNUAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $237,099. (Phase II of Five Points Project).

 

 

3.      Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID) � Downtown Burbank:

 

The purpose of this agenda item is for the City of Burbank to accept the submission of a petition from downtown property owners, and authorize the initiation of proceedings to form a Property-Based Business Improvement District (PBID).

 

In August 2002, the Redevelopment Agency (Agency) conducted a Study Session to review a comprehensive strategy for the revitalization of Downtown Burbank.  The strategy included marketing efforts, a leasing strategy and a Downtown Tenant Assistance Program to attract quality tenants to fill existing vacancies.  Infrastructure improvements were also recommended such as the installation of �Smart Parking� technology, and a Wayfinding/Signage Program to direct motorists and pedestrian to and around the downtown.  Finally, the strategy outlined a reformatted Business Improvement District that includes a substantially expanded program and broader participation from downtown businesses and property owners.

 

The successful implementation of this strategy requires a broad level of support including a dedicated funding source and staffing. The existing tenant-based Business Improvement District (BID) generates revenues of approximately $70,000 annually.  This level of funding cannot support the activities and improvements necessary to maximize the potential of Burbank�s downtown.  Also, while the current BID is comprised of core downtown businesses, it excludes major regional draws such as IKEA and the Media City Center.

 

Staff has received suggestions from members of the existing BID to consider the formation of a new Property-based Business Improvement District (PBID).  Staff had further meetings with local business leaders regarding the feasibility of transitioning from a tenant-based to a property-based BID in order to expand participation and increase funding.  As a result, in September 2002, the Agency approved the funding for a contract with Downtown Resources, a firm that has successfully developed PBIDs throughout California.

 

A Downtown Burbank PBID Steering Committee was subsequently formed to work with Downtown Resources on the development of a Downtown Burbank Management District Plan (Plan). The Steering Committee held monthly meetings to develop the Plan.  In addition, there were numerous meetings with key stakeholders throughout Downtown. In April 2003, the Steering Committee and Downtown Resources presented a draft Plan to property owners to receive their final feedback. Downtown Resources then made final refinements to the Plan to reflect many of the property owners� comments and suggestions.

 

A final Plan was made available and property owners representing 51 percent of the proposed assessment have signed a petition to initiate the special assessment proceedings.  State law requires public agencies to participate in the PBID, if approved, including the payment of assessments.  If the Agency and City are included, the total percentage of petitioners would represent 66.33 percent of the entire district.

 

If the City approves the initiation of proceedings, ballots will be sent out to all property owners within the proposed District to vote on whether to approve the formation of the PBID. The City will also be authorizing the setting of a noticed hearing on the proposed PBID on July 22, 2003.  At that time, the Council will accept the ballots and consider the final approval of the PBID.

 

The Plan outlines major components of the PBID including: the proposed boundaries; service plan and budget; the proposed assessment formula (engineer�s report); and, the proposed governance of the organization.  The proposed boundaries include all of Downtown as generally described as Burbank Boulevard to the north, Glenoaks Boulevard to the east, Verdugo Avenue to the south and the Interstate 5 freeway to the west.  In addition, it includes the area known as the Downtown Burbank Station (formerly the Regional Intermodal Transportation Center, or RITC).

 

The Plan also proposes a number of capital improvements as well as service programs such as maintenance, promotions, administration and a five-year budget, which is the maximum length that a PBID may be established, before re-establishment.  The following summarizes the budget on an annual basis:

 

   CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

               Smart Parking                                                                      $ 60,000

               Wayfinding                                                                            $ 60,000

               Street/Paseo Upgrades & Holiday Decorations             $120,000

                                  

   MAINTENANCE/SECURITY                                                          $110,000

 

   PROMOTIONS, ADVERTISING, EVENTS, ETC.                       $250,000

 

   ADMINISTRATION                                                                           $  95,000

 

   CONTINGENCY RESERVE                                                           $  25,000

 

               TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET                                              $720,000

 

The proposed assessment is $.16 per square foot of land per year, and $2.00 per linear front footage along San Fernando Boulevard south of Magnolia Boulevard.  For example, an owner with a 10,000 square foot parcel and 50 feet of front footage on San Fernando Boulevard would pay $1,600 (land), and $100 front footage, for a total of $1,700 per year.

 

It was also recognized that certain land uses should pay a lesser rate, and others should be exempted all together.  The Plan therefore proposes that industrial uses only pay 50 percent of the above assessment, and that residential uses and non-profits such as the YMCA and Salvation Army be exempted.

 

Finally, it is important to note that governments are not exempted from paying the assessments.   Therefore, the City, Agency and other government jurisdictions will be assessed at the same $.16 formula.  However, it is recommended that the Agency fund the assessment costs for both the City and the Burbank Unified School District. The City�s annual assessment is estimated to be $81,100, and the School District�s assessment is approximately $6,700 per year.  With the Agency�s assessment of $35,200, the total annual cost to the Agency would therefore be approximately $123,000.  In other words, the Agency would pay a total of $615,000 over five years, while the private property owners would raise $2,985,000 over the same time.  As part of the City and Agency�s actions, it is recommended that the City Manager and Executive Director be directed to sign the proposed petition.  Should the owners at the end of the five-year Plan no longer want to participate in the PBID, the district would automatically dissolve, unless a majority wished to continue.

 

Recommendation:

 

It is recommended that the Council and Agency take the following actions:

 

1.      By motion, authorize the City Manager and Executive Director to sign the proposed petition on behalf of the City and Redevelopment Agency.

 

2.      Direct the preparation of agreements for the Agency to pay the annual assessments on behalf of the City and School District.

 

3.      Adoption of proposed City Council resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK TO FORM A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994.

 

4.      Adoption of proposed Redevelopment Agency resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT LAW OF 1994.

 

 

RECESS for the Redevelopment Agency meeting.

 

RECONVENE for the City Council meeting.

 

 

CONSENT CALENDAR: (Item 4)

 

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

 

4.      EXTENSION OF TIME FRAMES FOR SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN CONDITIONAL VACATIONS V-324 AND V-326:

 

In 1999 the Council adopted two resolutions vacating an alley and a portion of Palm Avenue on the site required for the Burbank Entertainment Village (BEV) AMC Theater project.  The resolutions conditionally vacated, 1) a portion of the alley between First Street and San Fernando Boulevard and between Magnolia Boulevard and Palm Avenue (V-324), by Resolution 25,582, and; 2) a portion of Palm Avenue between First Street and San Fernando Boulevard (V-326) by Resolution 25,595.  The vacation resolutions contained provisions that they would expire within two years from the date of adoption if the conditions allowing the vacations to be recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder had not been met.  V-324 was adopted on August 3, 1999 and V-326 was adopted on August 31, 1999.

 

The time frames imposed in the original and amended vacation resolutions were not intended to void the vacation of the alley and Palm Avenue but were intended to provide the necessary time to satisfy the conditions.  The time frames were included simply as a means of returning the alley and street rights of way to public use if the project was never built, recognizing it would be necessary to eliminate both the alley and vacated Palm Avenue in order to satisfy the vacation conditions.  Therefore, the vacation resolutions anticipated that if the project went forward the alley and vacated Palm Avenue would be eliminated and there would be no need to retain conditions to return the rights of way to the public.   The time frame was considered to be sufficient for BEV, LLC, the developer, to acquire all of the parcels surrounding the proposed alley vacation and satisfy the conditions of both resolutions.  Due to difficulties in obtaining financing to acquire and develop the proposed site, the developer was unable to acquire title to the site within the anticipated time frame.

 

On August 28, 2001 the Council adopted Resolution 26,081, and Resolution 26,082 amending the two previously adopted resolutions to extend the time frame allowed to satisfy the conditions of the vacations for an additional year from August 28, 2001 to August 28, 2002 to satisfy all conditions of both vacations.  Again, due to unanticipated delays, it is necessary to amend the expiration dates to record the vacations by June 18, 2003, in time for the opening of the new AMC Theater project.

 

The vacation conditions required certain activities including relocation, abandonment or protection and retention of in-place public utilities, construction of certain curbs, sidewalk and alley approaches, easement agreements with adjacent private property owners on San Fernando Boulevard to guarantee access to the rear of the properties on San Fernando Boulevard, storm water acceptance agreements, dedication of easements, and creation of fire lanes as necessary.  In order to satisfy the conditions for recordation it was necessary to acquire all private properties adjacent to the areas to be vacated, to construct necessary improvements and public utilities, to close and eliminate the alley, and to close and reconstruct the vacated Palm Avenue before the easement vacations could be recorded and go into effect.

 

Although the expiration date for the amended resolutions was August 28, 2002, the resolutions can be amended beyond the expiration date in order to extend the time within which the conditions can be met and the vacation can be recorded and go into effect.  Unlike most Council resolutions that become effective upon adoption, resolutions vacating public rights of way and public service easements do not go into effect until they are recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder.  Therefore, although the Council approved the initial vacations, the resolutions never went into effect because the conditions had not yet been met.  The expiration date contained in the original, and amended vacation resolutions, created a date beyond which the adopted resolution could not be recorded and become effective but does not invalidate the Council approval of the initial vacation resolutions.  The resolutions amending the expiration dates relate back to the adoption of the original vacation resolutions in 1999.  The legal effect of amending the expiration dates is that the original vacation resolutions did not expire.  

 

In this case, since the vacation resolutions had not gone into effect, and had been amended once, when it became evident that the vacation conditions would not be met by August 28, 2002, staff, and the developer, decided to delay any further extensions until such time as the conditions were ready to be completed.  

 

The AMC project is scheduled to open on June 18, 2003, all conditions of the vacation have been met and the project has been substantially completed.  There is no necessity to retain any conditions which might return the vacated rights of way to the City and the vacation resolutions can now be recorded with the Los Angeles County Registrar Recorder.  It is necessary to amend the vacation resolutions to eliminate the inconsistencies in the language relating to the time frames for expiration so that they will be accepted for recordation by the County of Los Angeles.  The proposed resolutions will extend the time frame to satisfy the conditions one additional year to August 28, 2003.  The adoption of the resolutions amending the time frames will have no fiscal impact to the City.

 

Recommendation:

 

Adoption of proposed resolutions entitled:

1.         A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 25,595 ORDERING THE CONDITIONAL VACATION OF A PORTION OF PALM AVENUE BETWEEN FIRST STREET AND NORTH SAN FERNANDO BOULEVARD (V-326).

 

2.         A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 25,582 ORDERING THE CONDITIONAL VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE ALLEY BOUNDED BY FIRST STREET AND NORTH SAN FERNANDO BOULEVARD, AND MAGNOLIA BOULEVARD AND PALM AVENUE (V-324).

 

 

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

 

 

REPORTS TO COUNCIL:

 

5.      CHANDLER BOULEVARD BIKEWAY PROJECT:

 

The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Chandler Boulevard Bikeway Project.

 

Removal of railroad tracks - In December 2002, the City entered into an agreement with JDK Railroad Materials, LLC to demolish the tracks on the project site.  This operation started in January 2003 and by the end of February 2003 all tracks were removed from the site.  The rails were destined for recycling and the ties for re-use on another railroad in Ventura County, all at no cost to the City.

 

Authorization from Caltrans to proceed with bikeway construction - Also in December 2002, staff submitted the required Federal documents along with the Bikeway plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) to Caltrans for their review and authorization.  This authorization is needed before the City can proceed with advertising for construction bids.

 

The review process typically takes 60 days to complete.  However, in March 2003, the Caltrans Environmental Division requested a Historic Property Survey Report and an Archaeological Survey Report to be performed on the right-of-way.  After conducting a site visit with City staff, Caltrans Environmental Division personnel determined that no historic cultural resources were present in the project area that might have been eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places or to the California Register of Historic Places.  Likewise, a cultural resources records search by the South Central Coastal Information Center indicated that no archaeological work was needed at this time.  Staff was thus able to satisfy both of Caltrans� requests, and expects to receive PS&E approval in early June 2003.

 

Fiber Optic installation agreement with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) - For the last six months, at the request of MTA, City and MTA staff had been working to develop a reimbursement agreement for the design and construction of a fiber optic conduit in the Bikeway project.  The intent of this agreement was to prevent future disruption of the bikeway construction, or damage to the finished bikeway, if MTA decided to construct the conduit at a later date.

 

In March 2003, staff forwarded the cost estimate, along with the final version of the agreement, to MTA for signature.  However, in April 2003, the City was notified that MTA had decided to design and construct the fiber optic conduit with their own forces before the City starts the bikeway construction.  Staff anticipates this will prevent several weeks, if not months, of additional delay in attempting to reach an agreement with MTA on the fiber optic design and construction issue.  MTA is expected to begin construction of the fiber optic conduit in July and complete it by October 2003.

 

Updated Project Schedule - Assuming Caltrans issues the Authorization to Proceed in early June 2003, the anticipated project schedule is as follows:

 

date	City schedule	mta schedule
June 2003	Authorization to Proceed with bidding from Caltrans
June 2003	Advertise for bids
July 2003	Bid opening and selection of contractor	Fiber optic
August 2003	Council award of Bikeway construction contract	construction
September 2003	Pre-construction meeting Notice to residents on construction schedule
October 2003	Begin bikeway construction
March 2004	Tree planting with community
April 2004	Complete construction

 

Recommendation:

 

Note and file.

 

 

6.      DISCLOSURE ON THE AGENDA OF REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS:

 

In response to a request by a member of the public, the Council requested staff to look at the issue of how much identifying information can and should be provided on the agenda for the benefit of the public in relation to Council Closed Sessions for real estate transactions.

 

In the specific discussions that led to this request two issues were raised.  First, can

and should the agenda disclosure include more information relative to the location of a corporation or other business entity when such entity is the prospective seller or buyer of real property?  Specifically, should the city where the office is located be disclosed, and should the exact address of the office be provided?  Secondly, should the names of any or all individual contacts in such business entity with whom the City is working on such project be disclosed?

 

The purpose of an agenda is to provide enough information to the public for meaningful participation.  Negotiations for real property can sometimes take years. During that time, the specific representatives of the potential buyer or seller often change as do the addresses of the specific office or official office.  As stated above, the address of the party negotiating with the City is not required.  The City needs to be cautious that in attempting to provide more information, the public is not mislead.  Very often when discussions are begun with a corporation on the purchase or sale of a piece of property, before the negotiations are concluded the City will have had contacts with several offices and several different individuals of that company.  The initial disclosure of the location or address, or even the last disclosure may not be currently accurate. Equally important, the address provides no additional information to the public which would assist them in having notice of the closed session item. People care about Wal-Mart, not whether their offices are located in El Monte.  Further, preferential treatment cannot be given to some businesses different than others, so should a potential purchaser or seller be an individual, then this change would suggest placing that individual�s home address on the public agenda.

 

With respect to listing the specific individual contacts, the Brown Act specifically states that agents should not be listed.  (See Government Code �54954.5(b).)  This makes it clear that the legislature wanted to have the actual parties to the transaction listed on the agenda and not the different and varied individuals with whom the discussions might take place.

 

It has been suggested that the individuals must be listed to assist the Council in knowing whether or not potential conflicts existed. In reality this is a specious argument.  A conflict would only be revealed if it happened to be that specific individual that had given a gift or provided some other financial benefit.  If a financial benefit came from anyone else in the company, such disclosure would do nothing to assist the Council or others in being aware of a possible conflict.  The best guide to a potential conflict is the name of the company itself. And again, the purpose of the agenda is to provide the public with knowledge of the decisions before the legislative body, so that they can be afforded with reasonable notice and an opportunity for meaningful participation. If a problem exists with conflict of interests, there are better ways to deal with that concern.

 

For any number of reasons the subject companies may not want their individual employees named on the City�s agenda, including that they certainly would not want individual citizens contacting them to express their views on the potential agreement.  That is something the Council and other public officials accept by virtue of serving the public, and not something that private entities must face because they do business with the public.

 

Recommendation:

        

It is recommended that the disclosure of information on the agenda relating to real property negotiations remain as specified by the �Safe Harbor� provisions of the Brown Act.

 

 

7.      ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

 

This report is in response to Council Member Golonski�s request to agendize the matter of Oral Communications for discussion by the Council. 

 

The Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code �54950 et seq.) provides that the public has a right to address the Council on any matter on the agenda of the Council before action is taken on that item (Government Code �54954.3), and to also address the Council on any subject within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council, that is, on subjects for which the Council has some ability to take action (Government Code �54954.3).   Implementing this provision has been a matter of much discussion and various changes over the years in the City.  At times there has been a period of Oral Communications at the beginning of the meeting at which only agenda items may be discussed, followed by a period of Oral Communications at the end of the meeting  at which general items within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City could be addressed.  Then at other times, both periods of Oral Communications were opened up to general matters under the subject matter jurisdiction of the City, which would include agenda items.  On June 12, 2001, the Council established four periods of Oral Communications as follows:

 

1.            The first period of Oral Communications precedes Closed Sessions, is limited to items on the Closed Session agenda and is limited to three minutes per speaker.

2.            The second period of Oral Communications is on the open session and allows speakers to address issues which fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council.  This period is limited to one minute per speaker.

3.            The third period of Oral Communications immediately follows the second, and allows speakers to address the Council only on action items on the agenda for that meeting.  This period is limited to four minutes per speaker.

4.            The fourth, and last period of Oral Communications, is at the end of the meeting, and also allows the public to address any item within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council.  In this period of Oral Communications the speakers may speak for three minutes, but those who have chosen to speak during the second period of Oral Communications may not also speak during this period.

 

Recommendation:

 

If the Council desires to further discuss the issue of Oral Communications, it is recommended that such direction be given to staff, and a more complete report will be brought back.

 

 

8.      AMENDMENT OF BURBANK-GLENDALE-PASADENA AIRPORT AUTHORITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT:

 

Mayor Murphy requested that the matter of amending the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the Burbank Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority (Authority) be placed on the Council�s agenda to consider a proposal to provide for staggered terms for the Authority members.  The JPA has been amended several times since it was originally adopted. Then in 1991, it was amended and restated and has not been amended since.  In previous discussions some representatives from the other member cities have expressed reluctance to agree to any further amendments.

 

As currently written, with regard to the terms of Commissioners, Section 2.2 of the Restated and Amended JPA, dated September 15, 1991,  states:

 

�The Commission shall be composed of nine (9) members. Each of the respective governing bodies of the Parties shall be entitled to appoint three (3) members to the Commission.  Members of the Commission shall serve for four (4) year terms, commencing June 1, 1977, with subsequent terms to commence on June 1 of each fourth (4^th) year thereafter, unless such service is terminated sooner as provided below.�

 

Should the member cities desire to consider language that would provide for the staggering of terms, it would be necessary to amend this language (specifically the last sentence), and an initial shorter period will need to be designated for some of each parties� appointees in order to create a staggered  term.  For example: �Members of the Commission shall generally serve for four (4) year terms, except that commencing _______, 200_, each party shall appoint __member(s) to the Commission for a  two year (or whatever) and each party shall appoint ____ member(s) to the Commission for a  four year term (or whatever), all with subsequent terms to commence on June 1 of each fourth (4^th) year thereafter, unless service is terminated sooner as provided below.�