Council Agenda - City of Burbank

5:30 P.M.

JOINT STUDY SESSION WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

Staff will make a comprehensive presentation on the City of Burbank�s affordable housing needs, and the strategy in place to expand the supply of affordable housing. The presentation will give a brief overview of various housing studies (1999 Housing Needs Assessment and 2001 Burbank Housing Profile), and government mandated housing documents (Housing Element of the City of Burbank General Plan, the Burbank Redevelopment Agency Five Year Implementation Plan, and the City of Burbank Consolidated Plan). These studies and plans have assisted in identifying affordable housing needs in the community, and set the policies and programs in place to assist with the creation of affordable housing development. The City�s goals and programs on affordable housing are more specifically outlined in a report prepared by the Agency-appointed Blue Ribbon Task Force on Affordable Housing. With extensive community involvement, the Task Force was charged with taking a comprehensive look at the City�s affordable housing needs, existing policies and programs, and providing recommendations to increase Burbank�s stock of affordable housing. Staff will summarize the Task Force�s housing objectives and programs, and will give an overview on implementation to date.

6:30 P.M.

INVOCATION: Chaplain Sally Kinarthy, Providence Saint Joseph Medical Center.

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: DARK MEETING ON AUGUST 5, 2003.

ANNOUNCEMENT: PROPOSED PLATT PROJECT COMMUNITY INPUT MEETING ON JULY 31, 2003.

ANNOUNCEMENT: NATIONAL NIGHT OUT ON AUGUST 5, 2003.

ANNOUNCEMENT: TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CENTRAL LIBRARY.

PRESENTATION: AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

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).

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 special meeting agenda of July 24, 2003. Other Airport related issues may also be discussed during this presentation.

INITIAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Two minutes 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 Oral Communications. 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.

Initial Open Public Comment 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 two minutes.

Agenda Item 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.

Final Open Public Comment 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 Initial Open Public Comment 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 two 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 INITIAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:

JOINT MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, PARKING AUTHORITY, AND YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD:

The purpose of this report is to request approval to carry over continuing appropriations from Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 to the FY 2003-04 budget for the City, Redevelopment Agency, Parking Authority, and Youth Endowment Services (YES) Fund.

At the end of each fiscal year, departments review their budgeted appropriations and submit requests for manual carryovers (unencumbered funds) to the Financial Services Department in mid-June. In parallel to the manual carryover process, departments also submit requests to the Purchasing Division of the Financial Services Department to keep requested purchase orders (encumbered funds) open with the funds carried forward to the next fiscal year. This report addresses those appropriations which have not been encumbered by the departments for goods or services and are considered necessary.

A summary document was put together based on the Request for Carryover Forms submitted by each department. Staff compiled a list of requests and began the process of determining funds availability, as well as the legitimacy of the request. A final list was developed, and distributed to the departments for final review and follow-up. Due to the budgetary problems that the City is projected to be facing for the next five years, it was decided that the Executive Team would review the final list and make the determination as to what carryover requests would be submitted to the Council/Agency/Authority/YES Fund Board for consideration. Keeping in mind the budgetary constraints, the Executive Team is satisfied that the requested carryover dollars are necessary.

Carryover appropriations are requested on an annual basis by the departments for a variety of reasons, but are most commonly in the following general areas: ongoing capital projects, delayed program implementation, continuing operations, including projects and studies, outstanding invoices, and restricted dollars for a specific purpose. This year, some of the major carryover requests are for ongoing capital projects and include: the Chandler Bikeway Project; Avon Street Connect � Empire Beautification Project; street improvements for Bid Schedules that have been awarded and the work may or may not have commenced yet; building improvements such as the work associated with the Development and Community Services Building; and, park projects such as the South San Fernando Park and Walk of Fame at George Izay Park.

Delayed program implementation may relate to deferrals of training, postponement of program implementation, a delay in completing a Request for Proposal (RFP) that necessitates a request for carryover funds, or a delay in purchasing software.

Some department requests focus on Continuing Operations. These type of requests encompass the following items: completing studies or design services; continued projects associated with the Sister City Committee, Tournament of Roses Association, Burbank Athletic Federation, etc; outstanding invoices including buses for the first week of day-camp, and pharmaceuticals for weapons of mass destruction; and, projected additional costs for items such as additional maintenance and repair of City- owned parking structures.

Restricted Dollars may refer to appropriations to grant recipients awarded by the City, such as Positive Alternatives for Youth (PAY) grants or YES Fund grants; dollars received by the City such as Public Library Funds, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants and Drug Asset Forfeiture Funds; or, donations appropriated for a specific purpose (animal shelter spaying/neutering or the Fire Safety Trailer are examples). In terms of City awarded grants, not all grants are paid out within the 2002-03 fiscal year, some programs run on a calendar year basis.

A summary carryover list designates each General Fund, Other Governmental Fund, Enterprise Fund, and Internal Service Fund requests by department, account number and name, amount requested, and a justification. The following chart identifies the anticipated total amounts to be carried over.

At year-end all unencumbered appropriations revert to available fund balance and can be used for other purposes. As the Council is aware through the FY 2003-04 budget adoption process, staff continues to be mindful of Burbank�s budget problems as well as the budget crisis at the State level. While the completion of the continuing appropriations process means that dollars are reverting to fund balance, due to accrual of outstanding invoices, the available fund balance figure can only be considered an estimate. Staff will be presenting the first quarter financial report in November which will include a summary of FY 2002-03.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

A RESOLUTION OF THE PARKING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2002-03.

4. Adoption of proposed Youth Endowment Services Fund Board resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS FROM FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003.

JOINT MEETING WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND BOARD:

On May 5, 1998, the Board of Directors of the Youth Endowment Services (YES) Fund, approved the recommendation from the YES Fund Advisory Committee and staff for the establishment of a newly-developed YES Fund Grant Awards Program Guidelines and Application. The grant awards program provided a financial mechanism for the expenditure of YES Fund monies that would meet the Committee�s goals. These goals are: (1) to provide funding to better accommodate the unmet needs for youth-oriented facilities and activities in the various redevelopment project areas or their adjacent neighborhoods; (2) to provide donated discretionary funding to better accommodate the unmet needs of Burbank youth; and (3) to establish a formalized review and recommendation process which would take place annually with the Board of Directors of the YES Fund for the allocation of YES funds.

Since the first grant cycle in 1998, the YES Fund Board of Directors has also approved modifications and recommendations from the YES Fund Advisory Committee in efforts to improve and maximize the grant awards program and expenditure of funds. These have included modifications to the grant application and process to encourage more applicants. The Committee also recommended allocating any fund balances remaining at the end of the fiscal year to the City of Burbank Robert Ovrom Park project. Further, it was determined that for all YES Grant Awards programs, the grant amount to be spent annually would be equal to the Redevelopment Tax Increment Funds available, and calculated by the Financial Services Department prior to the annual application process.

The two cycles of applicant awards represent a combined $241,670 in proposed YES Grant awards, and are summarized as follows:

1. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from the Burbank Family YMCA and recommended for funding in the amount of $12,683 for child care facility improvements. The proposed use of the grant award would be to make improvements to the YMCA's School Aged Child Care program facility at Luther Burbank Middle School as described in grantee's application.

2. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Jordan Middle School and recommended for funding in the amount of $16,104 for auditorium improvements. The proposed use of the grant award would be to replace curtains, travelers, rework rigging, lubricate and reinforce tracks and ropes in the school auditorium as described in the grantee�s application.

3. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Burbank Little League and recommended for funding in the amount of $9,007 for athletic field improvements. The proposed use of the grant award would to improve the field at Brace Canyon Park to include planting grass, infield dirt or clay and installing irrigation as described in grantee's application.

4. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Jefferson Elementary School and recommended for funding in the amount of $13,000 for a shade structure. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install a shade structure that will cover the equipment area on the lower playground as described in grantee's application.

5. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Luther Burbank Middle School and recommended for funding in the amount of $25,000 for a lunch shelter. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install a shade cover for the lunch area as described in grantee's application.

6. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from John Burroughs High School and recommended for funding in the amount of $10,000 for a girls softball batting cage. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install a batting cage, including concrete, fencing, electrical and demolition work as described in grantee's application.

7. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Disney Elementary School and recommended for funding in the amount of $5,626 for a sound system. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install a sound system at the school's Creative Arts Center as described in grantee�s application.

8. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from the City of Burbank Park, Recreation and Community Services Department and recommended for funding in the amount of $6,000 for the Olive Recreation Center dance floor. The proposed use of the grant award would be to refinish the Olive Recreation Center dance floor, including sanding, finishing and painting as described in grantee's application.

9. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from the Burbank Tennis Center and recommended for funding in the amount of $1,250 for a storage shed. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install a storage shed for keeping equipment related to the center�s United States Tennis Association (USTA) youth tennis instructional program as described in grantee's application.

10. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Burbank Unified School District and recommended for funding in the amount of $15,000 for field improvements at John Burroughs High School. The proposed use of the grant award would be to design and install netting along the first base foul line at the school�s baseball field as described in grantee's application.

11. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Burbank Unified School District and recommended for funding in the amount of $10,000 for lighting at Burbank High School. The proposed use of the grant award would be for replacement of light fixtures at the school�s baseball field as described in grantee�s application.

12. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Burbank Unified School District and recommended for funding in the amount of $10,000 for lighting at John Burroughs High School. The proposed use of the grant award would be for replacement of light fixtures at the school�s baseball field as described in grantee�s application.

13. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Burbank Unified School District and recommended for funding in the amount of $8,000 for lighting at John Burroughs High School. The proposed use of the grant award would be for replacement of light fixtures at the school�s tennis courts as described in grantee's application.

14. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from Burbank Unified School District and recommended for funding in the amount of $10,000 for lighting at John Burroughs High School. The proposed use of the grant award would be for replacement of light fixtures at the school�s memorial field as described in grantee's application.

15. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from the City of Burbank Park, Recreation and Community Services Department and recommended for funding in the amount of $45,000 for playground equipment. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install new playground equipment at Robert Lundigan Park as described in grantee�s application.

16. A YES Fund grant application was accepted from the City of Burbank Park, Recreation and Community Services Department and recommended for funding in the amount of $45,000 for playground equipment. The proposed use of the grant award would be to purchase and install new playground equipment at Vickroy Park as described in grantee�s application.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING CERTAIN YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES EXPENDITURES.

A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURBANK AUTHORIZING CERTAIN YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES EXPENDITURES.

3. Adoption of proposed Youth Endowment Services Fund Board resolution entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE YOUTH ENDOWMENT SERVICES FUND OF THE CITY OF BURBANK APPROVING GRANT AWARDS OF YES FUNDS TO FIVE RECIPIENTS AND AMENDING FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE YES FUND GRANT RECIPIENTS.

Since the approval of the new Buena Vista Library, extensive analysis has been conducted on land use opportunities for the old Buena Vista Library site. A variety of land uses were identified and analyzed. Various factors were considered during the land-use analysis phase including: minimum required building and lot size; cost; and neighborhood compatibility. Most of the proposed uses were deemed not appropriate for the site considering the size of the site and neighborhood compatibility. After additional analysis, two land use options were presented to the Council that were determined to be compatible with the single-family nature of the neighborhood, and that could be accommodated by the site and/or existing building. These land uses are: Single-family residential (5 single-family homes or a 9-unit small lot single-family development); and re-use of the existing building for a childcare facility.

On February 3, 2003, the Council directed staff to hold a general community meeting with special notification to the immediate neighborhood to get feedback on these two land use options, and any other thoughts and ideas the community had for the site. Staff was also asked to re-analyze the site to see if the site could accommodate a mixed-use housing and childcare option.

The community meeting was held on Saturday, May 31, 2003 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at the new Buena Vista Library Community room. Community outreach included an article and advertisement in the Burbank Chamber of Commerce May journal, and four separate advertisements in the Burbank Leader. In addition, the meeting was advertised on Burbank Channel 6, and a meeting announcement was added to the City and Redevelopment Agency websites. Flyers were distributed at all public counters including City Hall, city offices, libraries, the Joslyn Center, and invitations were sent to members of all Boards and Commissions, and community organizations such as the YMCA, Boys and Girls Club, and the Burbank Unified School District. Finally, staff sent an invitation to all Burbank businesses that had previously received the City�s Childcare Package (sent to all the studios and businesses with more than 50 employees). To advertise the meeting to the immediate neighborhood, staff sent written notification (postcard) to property owners and residents within a 2,500 foot radius of the site.

Staff estimates about 100 people attended the community meeting. Participants included residents of Burbank, members of the City�s Childcare and Transportation Committees, residents of neighboring communities such as Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, Glendale, Pasadena, and Altadena, and representatives from local community organizations. Of the total participants, about 66 percent lived in Burbank.

The community meeting was facilitated by Royleen White and Associates, and held in an education/idea �fair� format. The theme for the day was F.I.S.H. (Fresh Ideas Start Here). This type of format allowed participants to be part of smaller discussion groups, and allowed the ability to circulate the room in order to give feedback, thoughts, and ideas on the two re-use options of residential and childcare the Council has been considering for the site, as well as the �blank canvas� area where participants added any other land use ideas.

The intent of the community meeting was not to reach consensus on a land use, however, some common key points staff has deduced from the feedback received are: 1) the City should keep the existing building; and 2) the building should be used for some type of community/public use.

In addition to analyzing the site for single-family residential units, and using the existing facility as a childcare facility, a mixed childcare and residential development was considered. An architectural and consultant firm that specializes in the re-use of sites for childcare facilities was asked to analyze the site for a mixed-use housing and childcare facility similar to the Cottages project. The conceptual design included a scaled-down, back-up childcare facility for up to 25 children with a small �community center� within the original footprint of the 1946 building footprint (approximately 5,100 square feet). The remainder of the site could be developed with four single-family homes in a Planned Unit Development (PUD) similar to a small-lot development.

A back-up childcare facility is a smaller facility that provides emergency childcare when regular childcare arrangements break down including instances when family childcare providers, nannies, and grandparents get sick or go on vacation, school is unexpectedly closed, or parents are in between childcare arrangements. This kind of center does not have the same parking and play yard requirements as a full-service childcare facility. In addition, a back-up facility would allow a portion of the existing building to be used for a community space such as a Family Resource Center. The main drawback to a back-up childcare facility is that they are very expensive to run because an operator cannot depend on steady revenue. On any given day, there could be one child or 25 children in the facility.

After analyzing several land use options for the site, the most compatible land uses have been determined to be single-family residential homes (5 standard single-family homes or 9 small lot single-family homes), or using the existing building for a full-service childcare facility. Based on the feedback received at the community meeting, most participants expressed the desire to keep the existing building for a public use. The Oversight Committee met to discuss the community meeting input, the different land use options, including the five to nine single-family residential units, using the existing building as a full-service childcare facility, and the mixed-use residential and childcare option. The Committee felt that utilizing the existing building for a full-service childcare facility would meet an unmet community childcare need, and satisfy the predominate thought expressed at the community meeting that the City keep the building for a public use.

Based on input from the community meeting, the project Oversight Committee, and the analysis presented, staff recommends the Council and Redevelopment Agency Board authorize the re-use and development of the site as a full-scale childcare facility, and direct staff to finalize the associated plans. Staff will return with final plans for a full scale childcare facility, final capital improvement costs, and a budget appropriation at a future date.

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 approval of a resolution confirming and approving the itemized written report submitted by the County of Los Angeles Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures, and the special assessment for the costs to abate certain weeds and debris. This resolution also directs the Agricultural Commissioner to file with the County Auditor of Los Angeles County, a certified copy of this resolution, and a copy of the itemized list of private property costs for abatement work performed by the County of Los Angeles.

As in prior years, the purpose of the annual weed abatement program is to remove the nuisance created on certain private properties by weeds and debris. The nuisances are potential fire hazards and serve as a haven for rodents and vectors. Each December the County provides the City with a list of properties in need of abatement.

On February 11, 2003, the Council adopted Resolution No. 26,427, certifying the County's list declaring that weeds and debris on certain properties were a nuisance and required abatement. After the February 11, 2003 meeting, the listed property owners were notified of the status of their parcels. On February 18, 2003, following a public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 26,433 ordering the abatement of nuisances caused by weeds and debris on the declared properties, and authorizing an assessment for costs incurred for abatement work performed by the County of Los Angeles.

The property list for abatement certified by Resolution No. 26,427 was provided by the County of Los Angeles in December 2002. The Los Angeles Agricultural Commissioner/Weights and Measures completed the abatement of weeds and debris on all parcels that did not respond to the earlier notice and submitted a report dated June 30, 2003, that identifies the parcels where abatement occurred and the cost of abatement.

Public properties owned by general government (such as Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), and the Burbank Redevelopment Agency are cleared by the County of Los Angeles Weed Abatement Division and are charged for the costs incurred.

The resolution before the Council confirms the report and the assessments against the affected properties, which if confirmed, will be submitted to the Los Angeles County tax collector for inclusion in the 2003 and 2004 property tax bill. Those property owners who opted to pay their bill outside of this process will not have a lien assessed on their property tax bill. The declaration list identifies the 34 properties for which weed abatement services were provided at a total cost of $4,299.48.

The County of Los Angeles incurred the costs for clearing certain private properties of weeds and debris. The County may be reimbursed directly or through the property tax bill as a lien against private property. There is no cost to the City of Burbank General Fund or Redevelopment Agency�s budget for this program, other than incidental administrative costs to coordinate the program.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURBANK CONFIRMING THE ITEMIZED WRITTEN REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER/ DIRECTOR OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FOR THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS AND PUBLIC NUISANCES, AND CONFIRMING THE COSTS OF SUCH ABATEMENT AND ASSESSING SUCH COSTS AGAINST CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY.

On July 9, 2002, the Planning Division presented a report to the Council outlining issues involved with view preservation/protection ordinances. View preservation includes regulations to protect scenic views from being lost to development and in some cases to vegetation (trees). View preservation (also called �viewshed�) ordinances may apply to views from public or private property.

The July 9, 2002 report included a statement that researching and preparing such an ordinance for Burbank could cost up to $100,000, but this was just an estimated maximum based on previous staff experience with planning consultants generally. The Council requested staff prepare a more definite estimate and a report and recommendations regarding hiring a consultant. The Council was particularly interested in ensuring that community attitudes regarding view protection be systematically solicited and understood before actually proceeding with preparing an ordinance. The Council also requested a discussion of whether the work could be completed by City staff.

Staff contacted and met informally with three planning/environmental consultants, to see how they would go about researching community attitudes and developing an ordinance, and to get preliminary estimates of work required, work products and costs. Staff broke down the consultant estimates into steps required for community input and actual ordinance development phases, and also evaluated the necessity and timing of certain technical (especially geographical) information products.

Staff advises that even if the work is primarily done in-house, some outside expertise in real estate economics and view preservation ordinances should be provided.

Based on Council direction, staff recommends authorization to issue a Request for Proposals for a qualified consultant to include a two-phase proposal: Phase One comprising of systematically soliciting public input concerning the appropriateness of a view protection ordinance; and, Phase Two comprising of preparing an ordinance if there is public support for one. The estimated cost is $5000 to $7500 for Phase One and $30,000 to $35,000 for Phase Two.

No source of funds has been identified for this project. Should the Council desire to proceed with this study, funds would have to be taken from the unappropriated fund balance which would have a negative effect on the Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) and budget stabilization funds. These funds were established in the Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget to address known future PERS costs and necessary expenditure reductions.

Staff recommends the Council direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant to prepare a viewshed ordinance.

The purpose of this staff report is to inform the Council of the results of staff�s meetings with the Sunset Canyon Drive residents and present staff�s analysis of the several traffic-related concerns of the residents. In addition, the report presents staff�s recommendation that a sidewalk not be installed on Sunset Canyon Drive in light of the opposition of many of the residents and the absence of pedestrian-related accidents on this street.

Staff held three meetings with the residents of Sunset Canyon Drive and neighboring properties over the past 16 months. In addition to opposing the installation of a sidewalk on Sunset Canyon Drive, the majority of the residents who came to the meetings had concerns about traffic volume, speed, truck traffic and signage on their street. Staff addressed each of these concerns and proposed mitigation where necessary and possible.

Staff recommends that: (a) the directional signage installed in keeping with the Hillside Recreation Neighborhood Protection Plan (HRNPP) be retained, where necessary, to achieve the goals of the HRNPP and that staff continue to work with residents to relocate and/or remove signage, where possible, to minimize impacts on residents of Sunset Canyon Drive; (b) Sunset Canyon Drive be removed from the Federal Highway Maps and subsequently, that the speed limits on Sunset Canyon Drive be lowered to 25 MPH to emphasize the residential character of the street; (c) staff does not recommend that a sidewalk be installed on Sunset Canyon Drive at this time. In the future, if the Council is still interested in pursuing the subject of a sidewalk, staff recommends that traffic accidents, walking patterns and traffic speed be carefully updated by the Public Works and Police Departments before a decision is made; (d) whereas resurfacing of the Sunset Canyon Drive would most likely lower the noise levels for adjacent properties, the current budgetary constraints and the relatively good condition of the street lead staff to recommend against the resurfacing of this street at this time. Public Works staff feels there are other streets in the City with a greater maintenance and safety need for resurfacing and that those streets should be a priority.

Staff has prepared the Burbank Water and Power (BWP) Water and Electric Monthly Report regarding water quality and power issues for July 2003.

WATER UPDATE

Water quality during June met or exceeded State and Federal drinking water standards.

Fiscal Year (FY) 2002-03 Year-To-Date preliminary Water Fund Financial Results as of June 30, 2003:

The following table shows the systemwide reliability statistics for FY 2001-02 compared to FY 2002-03.

Financial and Operations Update

FY 2002-03 year-to-date preliminary Power Financial Results as of June 30, 2003:

June 2003 Unit Data

The purpose of this report is to provide a forum for the Council to discuss the selection of a Council delegate to the League of California Cities 2003 Annual Conference in Sacramento.

The League of California Cities 2003 Annual Conference is scheduled for Sunday, September 7, 2003 through Wednesday, September 10, 2003 in Sacramento. One important aspect of the annual conference is the annual business meeting where the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness, and vitality of local government in California. The annual business meeting will take place on Wednesday, September 10, 2003 at 10:00 a.m. at the Sacramento Convention Center.

Typically, the Council will designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be registered at the conference and present at the Annual Business Meeting. Most recently, the Council selected Mayor Murphy, the Council�s current League of California Cities liaison, to represent the Council and vote at a special League of California Cities meeting, held on May 15, 2003.

There is no fiscal impact to this action. Costs for attending the meeting, as well as travel costs incurred, will be absorbed in the Fiscal Year 2003-04 Adopted City Council budget.

It is staff�s recommendation that the Council initiate discussion regarding whether to send a delegate from among its membership to attend the annual League of California Cities Business Meeting. Should the Council select to send a delegate, they should select their current League liaison and an alternate, or select another Council Member to attend, as well as an alternate to vote in his/her absence.

The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2003-04 Annual Work Program and Departmental Performance Indicators.

The Annual Work Program is used as a management tool to identify, prioritize, and monitor the City's projects in accordance with the Strategic Plan. The proposed FY 2003-04 Annual Work Program includes over 300 goals and objectives, including several capital improvement projects.

Generally, the Annual Work Program document reflects the objectives defined by each department and suggested by the Council during the annual budget study sessions. Listing all the specific objectives together in one document allows the Council, City staff, and the public an opportunity to comprehensively review the City's Annual Work Program as a companion volume to the 10-Year Strategic Plan.

Included with the Annual Work Program review are the FY 2003-04 Departmental Performance Indicators. Performance Indicators are used by the City to assess how efficiently and effectively programs and activities are provided, and determine whether organizational goals are being met. Performance Indicators have become an integral part of the budget process for most cities and are a needed component to compete for state and national budget awards.

Although this is an �initial presentation� and not a �status update,� each Department Manager will present their proposed FY 2003-04 Annual Work Program and Performance Indicators for the Council�s review and be prepared to answer any questions from the Council as per the attached presentation schedule.

Staff continues to believe that the Annual Work Program and Departmental Performance Indicators are effective project-tracking and work quality measurement tools that assist the Council in achieving their Strategic Plan goals. Staff requests that the Council review the proposed FY 2003-04 Work Program and Departmental Performance Indicators per the proposed schedule and provide input and direction as necessary.

RECONVENE the Redevelopment Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Youth Endowment Services Fund Board meetings for public comment.

FINAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: (Two minutes on any matter concerning the business of the City.)

This is the time for the Final Open Public Comment Period of Oral Communications. Each speaker will be allowed a maximum of TWO minutes and may speak on any matter concerning the business of the City. However, any speaker that spoke during the Initial Open Public Comment Period of Oral Communications may not speak during the Final Open Public Comment 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 FINAL OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: