Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.02.02 City ofRUYIl 79=0 BURLINGAME CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (650)558-7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING-MONDAY,FEBRUARY 2, 2004 PAGE 1 OF 2 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, December 16, 2003; Traffic, Safety & Parking, January 8, 2004; Planning, January 26, 2004 b. Letter from Comcast concerning programming adjustment 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE:Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities,please contact the City Clerk at(650)558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—February 17, 2004 b CITY C BURLNKiAFiE o' a •Tm.Ml.6 b• BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting of January 20,2004 CLOSED SESSION: a. Threatened Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c): One matter b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8 Proposed property exchange with Safeway involving 1450 Howard Avenue and City Parking Lots K and L, Agency negotiators: Jim Nantell, Larry Anderson, George Bagdon; Negotiating parties: Safeway, Inc.; Under negotiation: Exchange of property C. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6; City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Bill Reilly, Bob Bell; Labor Organization: Local 2400 International Association of Fire Fighters CA Anderson advised that Council provided direction in the handling of these matters. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Dean Treft. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman Baylock reported the following correction to the December 8, 2003 minutes of the Special Joint Meeting with Hillsborough: Add Jim Nantell to"Staff Present." Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the December 8, 2003 Special Joint Meeting with Hillsborough; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony reported the following corrections to the January 5, 2004 minutes of the regular Council meeting: page 1, Item 4, misspelling of Planning Commission Chair Bojues' name; additionally, on page 5, Item 11, second paragraph, third line, should read "Noted a letter signed by the mayor was sent to Redwood 1 Burlingame City Council January 20,2004 Approved Minutes City Chamber of Commerce requesting it be held in San Mateo County in future years." Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the regular January 5, 2004 Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the minutes of the special meeting of January 14, 2004; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATION None. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF INVESTIGATION FEE FOR CONSTRUCTION AT 2739 MARTINEZ DRIVE CE Murtuza recommended Council hold a public hearing and consider the appeal of the property owner for relief from the imposition of an investigation fee of$629 for work commenced without obtaining building permits. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to deny the appeal of the investigation fee for 2739 Martinez Drive; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. ADOPT ORDINANCE #1727 AMENDING CHAPTER 25.76 AND ADDING CHAPTER 10.58 TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESSES CA Anderson recommended Council hold a public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 25.76 and adding Chapter 10.58 to clarify regulations regarding adult-oriented businesses. Commander Brad Floyd and Sergeant Chuck Castle discussed secondary effects of this ordinance. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Clarence Cravalho, 1012 Howard Avenue, San Mateo, asked about previous adult-oriented businesses. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve Ordinance#1727 amending Chapter 25.76 and adding Chapter 10.58 to clarify regulations regarding adult-oriented businesses; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days before proposed adoption. C. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE #1728 TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO ALLOW CERTAIN ARBORS, CLARIFY VEHICLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND MAKE SIGN PROVISIONS CONSISTENT CP Monroe recommended Council hold a public hearing regarding amendments to the zoning code to allow certain arbors,to clarify parking requirements and to make sign provisions consistent. 2 Burlingame City Council January 20,2004 Approved Minutes Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor,and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Ordinance #1728 to amend the zoning code to allow certain arbors, to clarify parking requirements and to make sign provisions consistent; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days before proposed adoption. d. ADOPT ORDINANCE #1729 FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN ADDITIONAL STOP SIGN AT HOWARD AVENUE AND HUMBOLDT ROAD CA Anderson recommended Council hold a public hearing on the installation of an additional stop sign at Howard Avenue and Humboldt Road. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. The following residents spoke in favor of the proposed stop signs: Michael Norton, 1010 Howard Avenue, Stephanie Kriebel, 7 Howard Avenue, Matt Schroth, 205 Howard Avenue, Clarence Cravalho, 1012 Howard Avenue, Meghan Chavez, 836 Alpine Avenue, Susan Groetchen, 15 Howard Avenue, Jason Berotti, 1020 Peninsula Avenue. Ron Charleston, 4 Howard Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve Ordinance#1729 for the installation of an additional stop sign at Howard Avenue and Humboldt Road; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Vice Mayor Galligan dissenting. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days before proposed adoption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Stephanie Kriebel, 7 Howard, commented on Vice Mayor Galligan's views regarding stop signs. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Councilwoman Baylock and Councilman Coffey conducted interviews for the vacant position on the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission. Both recommended Gene Condon for the position. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to appoint Gene Condon to the vacant position on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. TRANSMITTAL OF 2003 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT (CAFR) FD Nava requested Council accept the 2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 3 Burlingame City Council January 20,2004 Approved Minutes e% b. RESOLUTION#8-2004 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR THE BURLINGAME EASTON WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 1 ADDED WORK City Engineer Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution#8-2004 authorizing an amendment to professional services agreement with the Culver Group for construction management services for the Burlingame Easton Water Main Replacement Project, Phase 1 added work. C. ANNUAL APPROVAL OF CITY OF BURLINGAME INVESTMENT POLICY FOR 2004 FD Nava requested Council approve the City of Burlingame's investment policy for 2004. d. AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR CARIBBEAN GARDENS 1306 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CA Anderson requested Council approve amendments to conditions for amusement permits for Caribbean Gardens, 1306 Old Bayshore Highway. e. APPROVE RESOLUTION #7-2004 APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS (IAFF) ON A COMBINED MOU WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH HRD Bell requested Council approve Resolution#7-2004 approving the tentative agreement with the International Association of Fire Fighters(IAFF) on a combined Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough. Vice Mayor Galligan noted today was a historic day regarding the approval of the combined Memorandum of Understanding. Mayor O'Mahony thanked Fire Chief Bill Reilly, Fire Chief Dave Millanese, HR Director Bob Bell and the fire employees from both departments for all their work on the fire department merger. f. WARRANTS & PAYROLL, DECEMBER 2003 FD Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#92757-93263 duly audited, in the amount of $2,667,852.30 (excluding library checks 92757-92786), Payroll checks#156688-157008 in the amount of $2,212,444.25, and various electronic funds transfers for the month of December, 2003. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 4 Burlingame City Council January 20,2004 Approved Minutes 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Processing Bayfront Specific Plan—next step Mayor O'Mahony requested the Bayfront Specific Plan be brought to the Council in March for action. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, January 12, 2004 b. Department Reports: Building, December 2003; Finance, December 2003; Police, December 2003 c. Emails regarding adoption of a military unit serving in Iraq through"Americans Supporting Americans" 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. in memory of Frank P. Kelly and Kathy Rogers. Respectfully submitted, Ann T. Musso City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council January 20,2004 Approved Minutes �` CITY G 6UIiLpiGAME w.m oe BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Study Meeting of January 24, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed study meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the Lane Room of the Burlingame Library. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 9:03 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony MEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS DPW Bagdon presented an overview of the modified sidewalk replacement program to Council. 4. COUNCIL BUDGET POLICY DIRECTION FD Nava spoke regarding the background information on the current year budget,which included the status of revenue projects versus actual, expenditure levels and projections for current year and the status of VLF and"BRAF II". FD Nava indicated that although it was unlikely that we would realize the 3%revenue growth projected in the adopted budget under expenditures in the budget would exceed the underage of revenues. CM Nantell spoke regarding projections for 2004/05 and 2005/06 revenues versus expenditures,projected budget gap, CII' funding, use of reserves, economic development funding and advanced planning. Depending on what the amount of State raids from City revenues, the projected gap between revenues and expenses ranges from-$2.95 to -$4.27 million. The Council then shared their perspectives on the following budget issues: a. CIP funding b. Use of reserves C. Budget assumptions d. Budget balancing approach e. Economic development funding f. Advance planning 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1 Burlingame City Council January 24,2004 Unapproved Minutes John Root, 1407 Montero,concerned about streets, fee increases, look at economic development and more ways to communicate; Karen Bonje, a property owner on Laguna, requested Council seriously look at fixing the storm drain system on Laguna; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, concerned about raising business license fees for the smaller businesses; Vince Quintana, President of AFSCME, spoke in response to Karen Bonje's concerns; Ann Keighran, 1531 Vancouver,would like to see fees raised in smaller increments over a longer period of time. 6. GOAL SETTING SESSION Council brainstormed and prioritized goals for FY 2004/05. The top goals that the staff will include in the Councils' goals on February 28`h are: a. Prepare a DVD on the City of Burlingame to be used for promoting the City to prospective businesses that may want to locate in Burlingame. b. Minimize the number of City employees that would lose their jobs as part of the budget balancing efforts. C. Modify the City's website to allow customers to register for recreation programs and other city services on line. d. Form citizen's task forces for various policy issues. e. Increase the number of building permits that can be approved"over the counter"and over the internet. f. Finish up the advance planning projects that are underway and plan not to undertake any additional advance planning projects in the new fiscal year. The Council also identified the following suggestions for consideration regarding the budget balancing efforts: a. Elimination of Planning Commission stipend. b. Look at staffing levels pre-boom and compare to current level. C. Consolidate purchasing where possible. d. Examine cafeteria plan option relative to the provision of employee benefits. e. Explore potential public support for donations to fund school liaison officer in the police department. Council adjourned to closed session at 11:55 a.m. 7. CLOSED SESSION Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Jim Nantell,Bob Bell; Labor Organizations: Police/Fire Administrators; Police Officers Association; AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829;BAMM; Teamsters Local 856; Department Heads and Unrepresented Employees. 2 Burlingame City Council January 24,2004 Unapproved Minutes 8. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 12:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Ann T.Musso City Clerk 3 Burlingame City Council January 24,2004 Unapproved Minutes -Y AGENDA 7a ITEM# STAFF MAG. 2/2/04 ' DATE REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Member SUBMITTED - - BY DATE: 1/28/04 APPROVED FROM: James Nantell, City Manager(558-7205) BY SUBJECT: State March Ballot Measures Prop 57 &Prop 58 Recommendation: That the Council review the information regarding State Propositions 57 "The Economic Recovery Bond Act" & 58 "The California Balanced Budget Act" and a. adopt a resolution of support; b. or direct staff to develop additional information for further Council consideration; c. or determine that the Council does not want to take any official position . Background: The economic problems that the City of Burlingame has been responsibly addressing in the last few years continue to be exasperated by the State's efforts to balance their financial challenges on the back of local government. Although the City Council members, like many residents, are frustrated with the lack of state leadership to address the problem in a more responsible manner(i.e. making the necessary cost reductions or raising revenues)their failure to do so places local government in a financially precarious position. Because of the very likely reality that a failure of Prop 57 & 58 would result in significant and dramatic default(or diversion) on payment of revenues due to cities and counties the Council may want to urge local voters to support both propositions that are a step in the right direction of more fiscal accountability at the State level. In order to be effective the voters must approve the both measures. Budget Impact: Failure of Prop 57 & 58 would probably place the following sources at even greater risk of State raiding: 1. Burlingame currently loses $1.3 million annually from property tax and the Governor has already proposed a budget that would raise that loss to $1.6 annually. Just how much more they would take of our remaining $9.5 million property tax remains to be seen. 2. The Governor and State Legislature continue to debate whether they will continue to seize the City's vehicle registration fees (for Burlingame the current amount at risk is $1.1 million of the total amount of$1.5 million). 3. State grants and funding for Libraries and the Police Department that would also be at risk is $250,000. U:\Council ARs\Prop 57&58.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING SUPPORT OF PROPOSITIONS 57 and 58 ON THE MARCH 2, 2004 BALLOT WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Governor have placed the Economic Recovery Bond Act and the California Balanced Budget Act on the March 2, 2004, ballot as Proposition 57 & 58; and WHEREAS, passage of both Propositions 57 and 58 would provide $15 billion in State general obligation bonds to retire deficit; and WHEREAS, failure to approve the propositions will very likely result in significant and dramatic default or diversion of revenues due to cities and counties; and WHEREAS, further raids on local revenues by the State will require dramatic reduction in both police and fire operations as well as libraries, public works and parks; and WHEREAS, there is little evidence that the State leadership has the ability to resolve their financial problems by reductions to State spending or increases in revenues in the near future, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council urges citizens to vote in favor of Proposition 57& 58 to provide funding to retire State debt and to require the provision of a budget reserve and the enactment of a balanced budget, because the passage of both propositions is required for either one to be effective. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: U:\CouncihResolutions\prop 57&58.doc Exhibits: Information from a variety of resources relative to the pros and cons of both Propositions 57 & 58, including the League of Women Voters, the Legislative Analyst, Yes on 57 & 58 Web site, local newspaper coverage. UACouncil ARsTrop 57&58.doc yod brmedcw� BALLOT MEASURE SUMMARY �"Fi�rvl -f'heSrna�~f'Vat The Economic Recovery Bond Act. IffileM The California Balanced Budget Act. Bond Act ; Legislative Constitutional Amendment Put on the Ballot by the Legislature Put on the Ballot by the Legislature Summary Summary One time bond of up to fifteen billion dollars Requires the enactment of a balanced budget, addresses fiscal ($15,000,000,000) to retire deficit. Fiscal Impact: One-time emergencies, and establishes a budget reserve. Fiscal Impact: increase, compared to previously authorized bond, of up to Net state fiscal effects unknown and will vary by year,depend- $4 billion to reduce the state's budget shortfall and annual ing in part on actions of future legislatures. Reserve provisions debt-service savings over the next few years. These effects may smooth state spending,with reductions during economic would be offset by higher annual debt-service costs in subse- expansions and increases during downturns. Provisions requir- quent years due to this bond's longer term and larger size. ing balanced budgets and limiting deficit borrowing could result in more immediate actions to correct budgetary short- falls. What Your Vote Means What Your Vote Means ............................. ............................................................................................................................. Yes No Yes No A YES vote on this measure A NO vote on this measure A YES vote on this measure A NO vote on this measure means: The state would sell means: The state would not means:The State Constitution means:The State Constitution $15 billion in bonds to pay sell $15 billion in bonds, but would be amended to provide would not be amended to add existing budgetary obliga- could instead sell bonds previ- for: (1) the enactment of a new requirements on state tions. ously authorized by the balanced state budget, (2) budgetary practices. Legislature to pay a smaller state budget reserve require- level of existing budgetary mens, and (3) limits on obligations. future borrowing to finance state budget deficits. Arguments Arguments ............................................................................................................................ ................................................................ ........... Pro Con Pro Con For three years, state govern- Proposition 57 doesn't end Proposition 58 will require With the $15 billion bonds, ment spending has exceeded our deficit. It postpones and the Governor and the we were SUPPOSED to get a revenues, creating a deficit. then increases it.It plunges us Legislature to enact a bal- strong spending limitation This measure will consolidate $15 billion deeper in anced budget. It will require measure. But Prop 58 DOES the deficit and allow debt—plus billions more in that spending not exceed NOT LIMIT SPENDING! California to get its finances interest—costing more than income each fiscal year and It allows short-term borrow- in order—without raising $2,000 per family. The recall will require building at least ing to balance the budget,the taxes. Proposition 57 will told Sacramento: NO NEW an $8 billion reserve. It will budget reserve is largely keep the state from running TAXES. NO on 57 will tellprohibit borrowing in the unprotected, and the door is out of money and prevent them: STOP BORROWING future to pay off deficits. wide open for massive spend- drastic cuts in education and AND OVERSPENDING. ing increases and higher taxes. health care. For Additional Information For Additional Information ........... ............................................................................................................. ona _.......................... Fo ..... r Against For Against Tom Hiltachk Senator Tom McClintock Tom Hiltachk Richard Rider Join Arnold 1029 K Street,Suite 44 Join Arnold San Diego Tax Fighters 455 Capitol Mall,Suite 801 Sacramento,CA 95814 455 Capitol Mall,Suite 801 10969 Red Cedar Drive Sacramento,CA 95814 916-448-9321 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Diego,CA 92131 916-442-7757 http://tommcdintock.com 916-442-7757 858-530-3027 info@)oinarnold.com info@joinarnold.com rrider@san.rr.com www.joinarnold.com www.joinarnold.com Ballot Measure Summary ( 3 ) �z. PROPOSITION The Economic Recovery Bond Act. OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Attorney General The Economic Recovery Bond Act. • A one time Economic Recovery Bond of up to fifteen billion dollars ($15,000,000,000) to pay off the state's accumulated General Fund deficit as of June 30, 2004. • The Economic Recovery Bond will only be issued if the California Balanced Budget Act is also approved by the voters. • The bonds will be secured by existing tax revenues and by other revenues that could be deposited in a special fund. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • One-time increase, compared to a previously authorized bond, of up to $4 billion to reduce the state's budget shortfall. • Annual debt-service savings over the next few years. • Above effects offset in subsequent years by higher annual debt-service costs due to this bond's larger size and the longer time period for its repayment. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Final Votes Cast by the Legislature on ABX5 9 (Proposition 57) Assembly: Ayes 65 Noes 13 Senate: Ayes 27 Noes 12 OTitle and Summary The Economic Recovery Bond Act. 5 7� ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST BadWound Repayment of Deficit Bonds California's Recent Budget Problems. Existing$10.7 Billion Bond.The previously authorized Californias General Fund budget supports a variety g PP deficit-financing bond was designed to be repaid through a of programs, including public schools, higher multiple-step process that "freed up" a revenue stream education, health, social services, and prisons. The dedicated solely to repayment of the bond.This involved: General Fund has experienced chronic shortfalls between revenues and expenditures since 2001-02, The diversion of a one-half cent portion of the when the economic and stock market downturns sales tax from local governments to a special fund dedicated to the bond's repayment. caused state revenues to decline sharply.To deal with these shortfalls, policymakers have reduced program • di diversion aproperty taxes from school expenditures, raised revenues, and taken a variety of districts to local l governments to offset their sales other measures. They have also engaged in various tax loss. forms of borrowing from special funds, local • Added state General Fund payments to school governments, and private credit markets. districts to replace their diverted property taxes. Deficit-Financing Bond One of the key actions As a result of these diversions,there is no net impact on taken to deal with the projected current-year local governments or school districts.The full cost of the (2003-04) budget shortfall was the authorization of bond's repayment is borne by the state's General Fund. a $10.7 billion deficit-financing bond.The purpose $15 Billion Proposition 57 Bond. Under this of this bond was to "wipe the slate clean" and proposition,the bond repayment method described above eliminate the cumulative budget deficit that would would be the same,except that the amount of revenues have existed at the end of 2002-03. This would diverted would be equivalent to one-quarter cent of the allow the state to avoid the more severe budget state sales tax instead of the one-half cent.The full cost of actions that would have been necessary to eliminate the bond would continue to be borne by the state's the deficit all at once. The repayment of the General Fund. currently authorized bond would be based on a multiple-step financing process (see shaded box for details). It would result in annual General Fund This deficit bond is currently being challenged in costs equivalent to one-half cent of the California court and has not yet been issued. (In the meantime, sales tax—or about $2.4 billion in 2004-05 and the carryover 2002-03 deficit is being financed increasing moderately each year thereafter—until through short-term borrowing, which is due to be the bond is paid off(in about five years). repaid in June 2004.) For text of Proposition 57 see page 18. Analysis ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) Projected Shortfall in 2004-05. The state is This measure would become effective only if facing another large budget shortfall in 2004-05, Proposition 58 on this ballot is also approved by which we estimate will be in the general range of the voters. $15 billion.This estimate assumes that the currently Fiscal Effects authorized $10.7 billion deficit-financing bond is sold and that the carryover 2002-03 deficit is The fiscal effects of the proposed bond are thereby taken off the books. Absent the bond summarized in Figure 1, and compared to the proceeds from this sale, the budget shortfall would currently authorized deficit-financing bond. The be much larger. proposed bond would result in near-term budgetary Proposal savings compared to the bond authorized in current P law, but added annual costs over the longer term. This proposition puts before the voters Specifically: authorization for the state to issue a bond of up to Near-Term Savings. The proceeds from the $15 billion to deal with its budget deficit.The bond proposed bond would be up to $4 billion more than authorized by this measure would be used in place of from the currently authorized bond. This would the deficit-financing bond authorized last year by provide the state with up to $4 billion in additional the Legislature. one-time funds to address its budget shortfall. The Repayment of Proposed Bond.The repayment of state would also realize near-term savings related to the bond would result in annual General Fund costs debt service on the bond. This is because the equivalent to one-quarter cent of California's sales payments would be based on one-quarter cent of tax revenues, compared to costs equivalent to one- annual sales taxes instead of one-half cent.As a result, half cent of sales tax revenues for the currently annual General Fund costs would be one-half of the authorized bond. In addition, certain funds currently authorized bond for the next few years. transferred to the state's Budget Stabilization Longer-Term Costs.The near-term savings would Account (created in Proposition 58 on this ballot, if be offset by higher costs in the longer term. This is approved) would be used to accelerate the because the proposed bond would be larger ($15 repayment of the bond. The measure includes a billion versus$10.7 billion) and it would take longer backup guarantee that if the sales tax revenues to repay. As indicated in Figure 1, the proposed dedicated to the bond are insufficient to pay bond bond would likely take between 9 and 14 years to principal and interest in any year, the General Fund pay back, compared to a 5-year period for the will make up the difference. currently authorized bond. OAnalysis ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) Comparison of Bond Authorized in Proposition 57 With Previously Authorized Bond Previously Authorized Proposition 57 Bond Micit-Financin',Bond Bond Amount $15 billiona $10.7 billion Annual General Fund Costs: •Annual costs related to sales tax diversion. $1.2 billionb $2.4 billionb • Potential annual payments from Proposition 58 reserveC $425 million in 2006-07 — $900 million in 2007-08 — $1.45 billion in 2008-09d — Years to Pay Off Bond: • Using only sales tax revenues. 14 5 •Assuming maximum $5 billion contribution from Proposition 58 reserve. 9 — a Net proceeds to the General Fund would likely be less,depending on reserve requirements and other factors. b Costs are for 2004-05. Amounts would increase moderately annually thereafter. c Based on LAO out-year revenue projections and assumes no suspensions of transfer to reserve. d These amounts would increase moderately annually thereafter until cumulative total from reserve equals$5 billion. l For text of Proposition 57 see page 18. Analysis O R R R s R R + ARGUMENT in Favor of Proposition 57 State government spending in California is out of accumulated a larger budget deficit. PROPOSITION control. Over the past three years, state spending has 57 WILL LEGALLY RESTRUCTURE AND significantly exceeded state revenues. REFINANCE THAT DEBT WITH THE The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS. consolidate the deficit and ALLOW CALIFORNIA Without this bond, the State of California may be out TO GET ITS FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER— of cash by June.To deal with a calamity of that magnitude WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. in such a short time frame, the only choice will be to The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will drastically increase taxes. The California Economic keep the state from running out of money and prevent Recovery Bond will let us refinance our inherited debt and drastic cuts in spending on vital programs like give the state time to deal with its ongoing structural education and health care. deficit. The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will The California Recovery Bond and the California not take effect unless voters approve the California Balanced Budget Act, Proposition 58, together will Balanced Budget Act, which PROHIBITS give California's leaders the tools necessary to restore BORROWING TO PAY DEFICITS ever again and confidence in the financial management of the State. requires enactment of a BALANCED BUDGET. Please join Superintendent of Public Instruction The California Balanced Budget Act also provides Jack O'Connell, the California Taxpayers'Association, for a fund of up to $5 billion that can be used to PAY State Controller Steve Westly, the California Chamber THESE BONDS OFF EARLY. It also provides fora of Commerce and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger RESERVE of at least $8 billion,which can be used to in supporting Proposition 57. It is the only way to PREVENT FUTURE DEFICITS. ensure California's financial future. Last year, the state approved $12.9 billion in bonds ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor to retire the accumulated budget deficit. The courts State of California have declared one bond issuance unconstitutional and LARRY MCCARTHY, President the other is subject to legal challenge because they California Taxpayers Association were not approved by voters. Since then, the state has ALLAN ZAREMBERG, President California Chamber of Commerce REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor of Proposition 57 Proponents contradict themselves. They say, that back $1,5 billion in loans plus billions more in spending is out of control, but at the same time say interest? Ultimately, it must come from either cuts' they don't want to cut it. that proponents have already said they don't want to So their answer is to borrow an unprecedented make—or from increased taxes. $15 billion—plus interest—and :keep right on Propositions 57 and 58 do nothing to reduce the spending. That's more than $2,000 for every state's out-of-control spending that ballooned the family in California. state budget from $57.8 billion five years ago to a If state spending were reduced 13.4 percent from projected $90.2 billion next year. They allow its current rate, the entire deficit would be cured in politics to continue as usual in Sacramento: spend, 18 months. And that's still 15 percent more than we borrow and tax. spent when Gray Davis became governor. Proponents say this won't raise taxes. Where do SENATOR TOM MCCLINTOCK they think the money is,going;to come from to pay SENATOR BILL MORROW OArguments Arguments panted on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. ARGUMENT Against Proposition 57 California is billions of dollars in debt. Out-of-control constitutional amendment—and have the audacity to borrowing has already cost California the lowest call it "a balanced budget amendment." credit rating in the nation—on a par with many Third Five years ago California spent$57.8 billion from its World countries. General Fund. Next year, it will spend $90.2 billion. Prop. 57 plunges us $15 billion DEEPER IN Instead of adding more than a billion dollars of DEBT—plus billions more in interest. Total debt additional debt service to the state budget every service from Prop. 57 will cost an average family more year for the life of this bond, we need to suspend than $2,000. the state's spending mandates and restore the power What does it buy? NOTHING. This doesn't buy that the Governor had from 1939 to 1983 to make a single school, road or park. It doesn't put a single cop mid-year spending reductions. on the street or relieve any traffic congestion. It simply The October Th election sent Sacramento an papers over the gigantic deficit that Sacramento's important message: NO NEW TAXES. politicians created in the first place. A NO vote on Prop. 57 sends them another: STOP Instead of cutting the waste from government BORROWING, STOP OVERSPENDING, and bureaucracy and targeting fraud for elimination, they PUT OUR FINANCES BACK IN ORDER!!! have decided to use the biggest bond in California history to cover their spending addiction. SENATOR TOM MCCLINTOCK Since 1849, California's Constitution has forbidden SENATOR BILL MORROW bonds like this from being used to paper over deficit spending. Long-term bonds are supposed to be used for schools, parks, highways and water projects that will serve coming generations. In order to put this unprecedented borrowing on the ballot, the same politicians also propose repealing this historic REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 57 The California Legislature has already approved by the opposition, the California Balanced Budget $12.9 billion in bonds to retire the accumulated Act will PROHIBIT BORROWING TO PAY P budget deficit. The California Economic Recovery DEFICITS ever again and will require enactment of Bond Act gives the voters the power to APPROVE A a BALANCED BUDGET. SOUND RESTRUCTURING PLAN for California. Governor Schwarzenegger needs both Propositions ,3 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed 57 and 58 to pass. It will give him the tools necessary the California Economic Recovery Plan to ALLOW to STOP BORROWING, STOP OVERSPENDING, CALIFORNIA TO GET ITS FINANCIAL and PUT OUR FINANCES BACK IN ORDER. HOUSE IN ORDER—WITHOUT RAISING Please join Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack TAXES.Without the California Economic Recovery O'Connell, the California Taxpayers' Association, State Bond Act, the state could run out of money, leaving Controller Steve Westly and the California Chamber of no choice but drastic cuts in spending on vital Commerce and VOTE "YES on Proposition 57. It is programs like education and health care or a huge the only way to ensure California's financial future. tax increase. Proposition 57 will let us refinance our ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor inherited debt and give the state time to deal with its State of California ongoing structural deficit. LARRY McCARTHY, President Remember, the California Economic Recovery California Taxpayers'Association Bond Act will not take effect unless voters approve CARL GUARDING, President r the California Balanced Budget Act. Don't be misled Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been.checked;or accuracy by any official agency. Arguments O 77 PROPOSITION The California Balanced Budget Act. OFFICIALTITLE AND SUMMARY Prepared by the Attorney General The California Balanced Budget Act. • Requires enactment of a balanced budget where General Fund expenditures do not exceed estimated General Fund revenues. • Allows the Governor to proclaim a fiscal emergency in specified circumstances, and submit proposed legislation to address the fiscal emergency. • Requires the Legislature to stop other action and act on legislation proposed to address the emergency. • Establishes a budget reserve. • Provides that the California Economic Recovery Bond Act is for a single object or work. • Prohibits any future deficit bonds. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: • Unknown net state fiscal effects, which will vary year by year and depend in part on actions of future Legislatures. • Reserve provisions may smooth state spending, with reductions during economic expansions and increases during downturns. • Balanced budget and debt limitation provisions could result in more immediate actions to correct budgetary shortfalls. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Final Votes Cast by the Legislature on ACAX5 5 (Proposition 58) Assembly: Ayes 80 Noes 0 Senate: Ayes 35 Noes 5 10 Title and Summary s R a ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST Background reserve fund. It does not, however, specify the size of the reserve, or the conditions under Californias Budget Situation which funds are placed into the reserve. California has experienced major budget • Debt-Related Provisions. The Constitution difficulties in recent years. After a period of high generally requires voter approval for debt backed growth in revenues and expenditures in the late by the state's general taxing authority. Over the 1990s, state tax revenues plunged in 2001 and the years, courts have ruled that certain types of budget fell badly out of balance. Although borrowing (including short-term borrowing to policymakers reduced program spending and cover cash shortfalls and some bonds repaid increased revenues to deal with part of the shortfalls, from specific revenue sources) can occur without the state has also carried over large deficits and voter approval. The Constitution also requires engaged in a significant amount of borrowing. The that bonds submitted to the voters for approval state budget faces another major shortfall in be for single object or work as specified in 2004-05 and it has a variety of other obligations— the respective bond act. For example, in past such as deferrals and loans from special funds—that years, voters have been asked to authorize bonds are outstanding at this time. for such single objects as education facilities, water projects, or prison construction. Constitutional Provisions Relating to Budgeting and Debt Proposal There are several budget- and debt-related This proposition amends the Constitution, provisions in California's Constitution that are making changes related to (1) the enactment and affected by this proposition. maintenance of a balanced state budget, (2) the • Balanced Budget Requirement. The establishment of specific reserve requirements, and Constitution requires the Governor to submit (3) a restriction on future deficit-related borrowing. by January 10 of each year a state budget The provisions are discussed in more detail below. proposal for the upcoming fiscal year (beginning on July 1) which is balanced—meaning that Balanced Budget Provisions estimated revenues must meet or exceed This proposition requires that the state adopt a proposed expenditures. While this balanced balanced budget and provides for mid-year adjustments budget requirement applies to the Governor's in the event that the budget falls out of balance. January budget submission, it does not apply to Balanced Budget. In addition to the existing the budget ultimately passed by the Legislature requirement that the Governor propose a balanced or signed by the Governor. budget, this measure requires that the state enact a •Mid-Year Budget Adjustments.The Legislature budget that is balanced. Specifically, estimated has met in special session during the past three revenues would have to meet or exceed estimated years to consider mid-year proposals to address expenditures in each year. budget shortfalls. However, there is no formal Mid-Year Adjustments. Under this measure, if process in the Constitution to require that mid- the Governor determines that the state is facing year corrective actions be taken when the budget substantial revenue shortfalls or spending falls out of balance. deficiencies, the Governor may declare a fiscal • Reserve Requirement. Reserve funds are emergency. He or she would then be required to typically used to cushion against unexpected propose legislation to address the problem, and call budget shortfalls. The Constitution requires the Legislature into special session for that purpose. that the Legislature establish a prudent state If the Legislature fails to pass and send to the For text of Proposition 58 see page 20. Analysis ll i j ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) Governor legislation to address the budget problem Allocation of Funds. Each year, 50 percent of within 45 days, it would be prohibited from (1) the annual transfers into the BSA would be allocated acting on any other bills or (2) adjourning in joint to a subaccount that is dedicated to repayment recess until such legislation is passed. of the deficit-recovery bond authorized by Proposition 57.These transfers would be made until Reserve Requirement they reach a cumulative total of $5 billion. Funds The proposal requires that a special reserve— from this subaccount would be automatically spent called the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA)—be for debt service on that bond.The remaining funds established in the state's General Fund. in the BSA would be available for transfer to the Annual Transfers. A portion of estimated annual General Fund. General Fund revenues would be transferred by the Spending From the Account. Funds in the BSA State Controller into the account no later than could be transferred from this account to the September 30 of each fiscal year. The specific General Fund through a majority vote of the transfers are 1 percent (about $850 million) in Legislature and approval of the Governor. Spending 2006-07, 2 percent (about $1.8 billion) in of these monies from the General Fund could be 2007-08, and 3 percent (about $2.9 billion) in made for various purposes—including to cover 2008-09 and thereafter. These transfers would budget shortfalls—generally with a two-thirds vote continue until the balance in the account reaches of the Legislature (same as current law). $8 billion or 5 percent of General Fund revenues, Related Provisions in Proposition 56. whichever is greater. The annual transfer Proposition 56 on this ballot also contains new, but requirement would be in effect whenever the different, requirements related to a state reserve balance falls below the$8 billion or 5 percent target. fund. (Given the current level of General Fund revenues— approximately $75 billion—the required reserve Prohibition Against Future Deficit Borrowing level would likely be $8 billion for at least the next Subsequent to the issuance of the bonds decade.) authorized in Proposition 57, this proposal would Suspension of Transfers. The annual transfers prohibit mostfuture borrowing to cover budget could be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year by an deficits.This restriction applies to general obligation executive order issued by the Governor no later than bonds, revenue bonds, and certain other forms of June 1 of the preceding fiscal year. long-term borrowing.The restriction does not apply Sl Analysis • ANALYSIS BY THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYST (CONT.) to certain other types of borrowing, such as budget deficits to carry over from one year to (1) short-term borrowing to cover cash shortfalls in the next. This meant that spending reductions the General Fund (including revenue anticipation and/or revenue increases were less than what notes or revenue anticipation warrants currently they otherwise would have been in those years. used by the state), or (2) borrowing between state The provisions of this measure requiring a funds. balanced budget and restricting borrowing would limit the state's future use of this option. Other Provisions As a result, the state would in some cases have to This measure also states that: take more immediate actions to correct •With regard to the bond authorized by budgetary shortfalls. Proposition 57, the "single object or work" for • Reserve Requirement. The $8 billion reserve which the Legislature may create debt target established by this proposition is much includes—for that measure only—the one-time larger than the amounts included in past budget funding of the accumulated state budget deficit plans. This larger reserve could be used to and other obligations, as determined by the smooth state spending over the course of an Director of Finance. economic cycle. That is, spending could be less • Its provisions take effect only if Proposition 57 during economic expansions (as a portion of the on this ballot is also approved by the voters. annual revenues are transferred into the reserve), and more during downturns (as the funds Fiscal Effects available in the reserve are used to "cushion" spending reductions that would otherwise be This measure could have a variety of fiscal effects, necessary). depending on future budget circumstances and . Other Possible Impacts. The proposition could future actions taken by Governors and Legislatures. have a variety of other impacts on state finances. Possible fiscal effects include: For example, to the extent that the measure • Balanced Budget and Debt Provisions. In resulted in more balanced budgets and less recent years, as well as during difficult budget borrowing over time, the state would benefit periods in the past, the Governor and financially from higher credit ratings and lower Legislature have at times allowed accumulated debt-service costs. For text of Proposition 58 see page 20. Analysis 13 • -lie California Balanced BUdget Act. • ARGUMENT in Favor of Proposition 58 State government spending in California is out of control. BALANCED BUDGET. This proposition, along with the Over the past three years, state spending has significantly California Economic Recovery Bond Act, will give us the exceeded state revenues. tools we need to resolve California's budget crisis. Proposition 58 will require the Governor and the As California faced unprecedented budget deficits for the California State Legislature to ENACT a BALANCED last 3 years, the problem was ignored, spending exceeded BUDGET. Right now, the Governor is only required to revenues, and there was no process in place to address the propose,not enact,a balanced budget.This loophole has led fiscal crisis. Proposition 58 will allow the Governor to call a to the huge budget deficits that plague California. Special Session of the Legislature to deal with future The California Balanced Budget Act: fiscal crises. If the Legislature fails to act within 45 days, then they will not be able to recess and they will not be able WILL require a BALANCED BUDGET; to pass any other legislation. This will force the Governor WILL require that SPENDING NOT EXCEED INCOME and the Legislature to work together to find a solution to each fiscal year; the problem BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. WILL require general funds to be put in a"Rainy Day'fund to The California Recovery Bond, Proposition 57, and the build a RESERVE to protect California from future economic California Balanced Budget Act, Proposition 58, together downturns.The Budget Stabilization Account will also be used will give Californias leaders the tools necessary to restore to pay off the California Economic Recovery Bond early; confidence in the financial management of the State. WILL allow the Governor to call a fiscal emergency if Please join Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, State revenues drop below expenditures or if expenditures exceed Controller Steve Westly, Superintendent of Public revenues; and Instruction Jack O'Connell, the California Chamber of WILL prohibit the Legislature from acting on other legislation Commerce, the California Taxpayers' Association, and all or adjourning if they fail to pass legislation to address the crisis. 80 members of the California State Assembly—both California faces unprecedented budget deficits.Overspending Republicans and Democrats—and support Proposition 58. has led to serious shortfalls which threatens the state's ability to ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor pay its bills and access financial markets.This proposition is a State of California safeguard against this EVER HAPPENING AGAIN. HERB J.WESSON,JR.,Speaker Proposition 58 will prevent the Legislature from ENACTING California State Assembly BUDGETS THAT SPEND MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE. JENNY OROPEZA, Chairwoman The California Balanced Budget Act will require, for Assembly Budget Committee the first time, the Governor and the Legislature to pass a REBUTTAL to Argument in Favor of Proposition 58 Reject this ruse! Remember the original deal we were term borrowing allows spending in excess of revenues promised by Arnold? Vote for a huge $15 billion bond to received. i pay for past mistakes, and we'll pass a solid spending limit Yes,the entire State Assembly voted for this measure.But so this mess doesn't happen again. we remember another bill that received such unanimous Prop. 57 gives us the bonds,but Prop. 58 does NOT give bipartisan approval—the terribly flawed electricity its ANY spending limit.The Legislature is free to continue deregulation bill that cost us billions and billions of dollars. spending like crazy, sticking us with higher taxes and more Prop. 58 does nothing except justify selling bonds.The debt. All pain for no gain. If we approve this toothless vaunted budget reserve is largely unprotected. Prop. 58 j plan," then perhaps we'll owe Gray Davis an apology! includes NO SPENDING LIMITS,leaving the door wide Yes, the budget will be "balanced," but by law the open to more borrowing and higher taxes. California budget ALREADY has to be balanced. The Force Sacramento to sober up. Vote NO on Prop. 58. problem is HOW it is balanced. Prop. 58 does NOT protect us from the sleazy methods currently employed to balance RICHARD RIDER, Chair the budget—accounting tricks and short-term borrowing. San Diego Tax Fighters Proponents claim that Prop. 58 requires that "spending BRUCE HENDERSON,President not exceed income each fiscal year." This statement is Association of Concerned Taxpayers factually incorrect, and they know it. As in the past, short- JOE ARMENDARIZ, Executive Director Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association 14 Arguments Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been cnerked for accuracy by any official agency. The Callfornla ,Balanced Budget Act 58 ARGUMENT Against Proposition 58 The same legislature that created the biggest budget California already has a prudent reserve requirement in deficit in California's history now wants to paper over that current law—legislatures and governors have ignored it. deficit by borrowing $15 billion, at a total cost of over Prop. 58 allows them to continue to ignore it. Weintraub: $2,000 per California family. "The governor could suspend transfers into the reserve at any Our California Constitution prohibits them from doing time. And the Legislature could transfer money out of the so. Since 1849, the "single object or work" provision of the reserve. . . at any time."It is no protection at all! Constitution has limited long-term borrowing to projects The Governor ALREADY has the power to call the like schools, parks, or water projects that will serve coming Legislature into session to address a developing budget generations. Prop. 58 sweeps that provision aside, and shortfall. This initiative requires the Legislature to take allows them to do what no generation in Californias action before it can move on to other business. But it is history has ever done—steal from the future. LOOPHOLE-RIDDEN.Weintraub writes: As long as they At a time when our state has the lowest credit rating in the passed any bill to address the shortfall, they could continue as nation—challenging Singapore and Malaysia—they want to usual even if the governor vetoed their approach. In practice, borrow $15 billion more to pay for their own such a provision is unlikely to yield anything very different from mistakes AND STICK YOU WITH THE BILL. Our the stalemates we see today." Constitution won't let them. But Prop. 58 shreds that If they were serious about a balanced budget, they'd provision,making it possible for them to plunge us$15 billion restore the Governor's power to make mid-year spending deeper into debt.That is the real purpose of Prop. 58. reductions to keep the budget in balance. If they were They have the audacity to call it a`Balanced Budget Act." serious about spending restraint, they'd restore the Gann How can they do that?Simple.They suspended the law that Spending Limit that produced a decade of balanced guarantees you an unbiased ballot title and summary— budgets and prudent reserves from 1979 until 1990. instead literally writing it themselves. Daniel Weintraub, But they're only serious about one thing—they want to perhaps the most respected newspaper columnist in borrow more money,and this amendmentgives them the power California,writes that `the balanced-budget requirement doesn't to do so. actually require that lawmakers approve a balanced budget." RICHARD RIDER, Chair Don't be fooled. California's Constitution already San Diego Tax Fighters prohibits long-term borrowing from being used to balance BRUCE HENDERSON,President the budget.That's the part they're suspending!We've gotten Association of Concerned Taxpayers into this mess because of short-term borrowing—and short- JOE ARMENDARIZ,Executive Director term borrowing is exempt from Prop. 58. As Weintraub says, Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association Prop. 58 `does not outlaw borrowing to paper over a deficit." REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 58 K Don't be fooled by the opponents.The California Taxpayers pass the budget, the Governor is required to call them into Association supports the California Balanced Budget Act. special session to make mid-year changes to the budget, so Proposition 58 WILL REQUIRE A BALANCED that we end the year with A BALANCED BUDGET.And , BUDGET for the first time. State government spending in Proposition 58 prohibits the Legislature from acting on rany CaliforniaCalifarnia is out of control. Over the past three years,state y new legislation until the budget is balanced again. b g g` spending has significantly exceeded state revenues. Proposition 58 does not change the GannSpending Under Proposition 58, the Governor and the California Limit. It is still the law, the BALANCED BUDGET ACT j State Legislature must ENACT _a BALANCED provides a new tool in the fight against overspending. BUDGET. It will CLOSE A LOOPHOLE that was used Proposition' 58 prohibits borrowing for future deficits. " to create the huge deficit. Proposition 58 requires building a reserve of at least Governor Schwarzenegger's California Economic $8 billion. Please support the California Recovery Plan Recovery Plan includes both Propositions 57 and 58. and vote YES`ON PROPOSITIONS 57 and 58. Combined, the two measures will allow California to ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor refinance its debt and prevent such a situation from EVER State of California HAPPENING AGAIN. We should not be allowed to BILL HAUCK, Chairman SPEND MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE. California Constitution Revision Commission Proposition 58 requires the Legislature to enact a ALLAN ZAREMBERG, Chairman balanced budget and if circumstances change after they California Chamber of Commerce Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have riot been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments 15 This overview of state bond debt replaces'a similar analysis in the principal ballot pamphlet.This.overview discusses the impact of the two bond measures on the ballot—Proposition 55(education facilities)and Proposition 57(budget deficit). The latter measure qualified for the ballot after the printing deadline for the principal ballot pamphlet. This section provides an overview of the state's Budget-Related Bonds. During the past two current bond debt. It also discusses the impact the years, the Governor and Legislature authorized bond measures on this ballot would, if approved, other bonds to help address the state's budget have on this debt level and the costs of paying it off. problem. These included a $10.7 billion deficit- financing bond enacted in 2003 to pay off the Background state's deficit. This bond, which is currently What Is Bond Financing? Bond financing is a being challenged in the courts, has not yet been type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to sold. The cost of repaying principal and interest raise money for various purposes. The state obtains on this bond would be borne by the state's this money by selling bonds to investors. In General Fund. exchange, it agrees to repay this money,with interest, What Are the Direct Costs of Bond Financing? according to a specified schedule. The state's cost for using bonds depends primarily on Why Are Bonds Used?The state has traditionally their interest rates and the time period over which used bonds to finance major capital outlay projects they are repaid. For example, most general obligation such as roads, educational facilities, prisons, parks, bonds are paid off over a 30-year period. Assuming water projects, and office buildings. This is done current tax-exempt interest rates for such bonds mainly because these facilities provide services for (about 5.25 percent), the cost of paying them off many years and their large dollar costs can be over 30 years is about $2 for each dollar borrowed— difficult to pay all at once. Recently, however, the $1 for the dollar borrowed and $1 for interest. state has also used bond financing to help close This cost, however, is spread over the entire major shortfalls in its General Fund budget. 30-year period, so the cost after adjusting for What Types of Bonds Does the State Sell?The inflation is considerably less—about $1.25 for each state sells three major types of bonds.These include: $1 borrowed. • General Fund-Supported Bonds.These are paid The State's Current Debt Situation off from the state's General Fund, which is Amount of General Fund Debt. As of November largely supported by tax revenues. Such bonds 2003, the state had about $36 billion of General take two forms. The majority are general Fund bond debt outstanding—about $29 billion of obligation bonds.These must be approved by the voters and their repayment is guaranteed in the general obligation bonds and $7 billion of lease- State Constitution. The second type is lease- revenue bonds. In addition, the state has not yet sold revenue bonds. These do not require voter about $21 billion of authorized bonds, either approval, are not guaranteed, and are paid off because the projects involved have not yet been started or those in progress have not yet reached their from lease payments (primarily from the General major construction phase. (This total does not Fund) by state agencies using the facilities they include the authorized $10.7 billion deficit- finance. As a result, they have somewhat higher interest costs than general obligation bonds. financing bond.) • Traditional Revenue Bonds. These also finance General Fund Debt Payments. We estimate that General Fund debt payments will be about $2.5 capital projects but are not supported by the billion in 2003-04. This amount lower than it General Fund. Rather, they are paid off from a is designated revenue stream—usually generated otherwise would be because of the deferral of certain by the projects they finance, such as bridgetolls. bond principal repayments to help deal with the General Fund's budget shortfall. Absent these one- These bonds also do not require voter approval. 16 State Bond Debt /;,v iN Qoth��Aiialvst AN OVERVIEW OF STATE BOND DEBT time impacts, debt payments will increase to about deficit-financing bond would, if sold, result in $2.4 $3.5 billion in 2004-05. As previously authorized billion in added General Fund costs in 2004-05, but currently unsold bonds are marketed, increasing moderately each year until the bonds are outstanding bond debt costs would rise to paid off(in roughly five years). If the $15 billion in approximately $4.1 billion in 2007-08, and slowly bonds authorized by Proposition 57 is used instead decline thereafter if no new bonds are authorized. of the currently authorized deficit-financing bond, Debt-Service Ratio. The level of General Fund the annual debt-service costs would be $1.2 billion debt payments stated as a percentage of state in 2004-05, increasing moderately in subsequent revenues is referred to as the state's debt-service ratio. years. (If the supplemental payments from the This ratio increased in the early 1990s and peaked at budget reserve established by Proposition 58 were slightly over 5 percent in the middle of the decade. included, annual payments could be higher in The ratio currently stands at about 3.3 percent, and individual years.) Because of the lower annual debt is expected to increase to 4.6 percent in 2004-05, repayment amounts and larger volume, however, and further to a peak of 4.9 percent in 2005-06 as these debt-service costs on the proposed bond would currently authorized bonds are sold. be in place for a longer time period—anywhere from nine to 14 years. Effects of Bond Propositions on This Ballot Impacts on Debt-Service Ratio. If the $12.3 There are two bond measures on this ballot: billion in education bonds on this ballot are • Proposition 55, which would authorize the state approved and eventually sold, the ratio would to issue$12.3 billion of general obligation bonds increase to about 5.3 percent in 2006-07 and for construction and renovation of public K-12 decline thereafter. If the debt service on the currently schools and higher education facilities. authorized deficit-financing bond is included in this calculation, the total debt-service ratio would jump • Proposition 57, which would authorize the state to between 8 percent and 8.5 percent per year until to issue a $15 billion bond to address the state's the bond is paid off (probably in 2009-10). If, budget shortfall. This bond would be used however, the bond proposed in Proposition 57 is instead of the currently authorized $10.7 billion approved and sold instead of the currently deficit-financing bond. authorized bond, the ratio would increase by less in The impacts of these measures on the state's debt the near term—to between 6.4 percent and 6.9 situation are discussed below percent annually between 2004-05 and 2008-09. Impacts on Debt Payments. If the$12.3 billion in However, this higher ratio would remain in place for bonds for education facilities authorized by a longer time period, since the proposed bond would Proposition 55 on this ballot are approved and take longer to pay off. (If supplemental payments eventually sold, there would be additional debt- from the budget reserve created by Proposition 58 service payments averaging over $800 million a year are included, the ratio could be higher in individual over the life of the bond. The currently authorized years.) State Bond Debt 17 TEXT OF RO • Proposition 57 This law proposed by Assembly Bill 9 of the 2003-2004 Fifth (b) The committee consists ofall of the following members: Extraordinary Session (Chapter 2, 2003-2004 Fifth Extraordinary (1) The Governor or his or her designee. Session) is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of (2) The Director of Finance. Article XVI of the California Constitution. (3) The Treasurer. This proposed law adds sections to the Government Code;therefore, (4) The Controller new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. (5) The Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing. (6) The Director of General Services. PROPOSED LAW (7) The Director of Transportation. (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,any member may des- ignate(commencing a deputy to act as that member in his or her place and stead for all pur- S poses,as though the member were personally present. Government Code,to read: (d) The Legislature finds and declares that each member of the commit- TITLE 18. THE ECONOMIC RECOVERYBOND ACT tee has previously acted as a member of a similar finance committee. (e) A majority of the members of the committee shall constitute a quo- rum of the committee and may act for the committee. CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS (� The Director of Finance shall serve as chairperson of the committee. 99050. (a) This title shall be known and may be cited as the Economic Recovery Bond Act. CHAPTER 3. ECONOMIC RECOVERY FUND (b) The Legislature finds and declares that it is essential to the public bonds issued and so roceeds o Thldursuant to this title 60. (a) The proceeds that an efficient,equitable,and alternative source offunding be estab- 990 P f P lished in order to preserve public education and critical health and safety pro- shall be deposited in the Economic Recovery Fund,which is hereby established grams that otherwise could not be funded in light of the accumulated state in the State Treasury. budget deficit,and that securing the availability of the proceeds of the bonds (b) Moneys in the fund shad be invested in the Surplus Money proposed to be issued and sold pursuant to this title is the most efficient,equi- Investment Fund,and any income from that investment shad be credited to the table,and economical means available. fund 99051. As used in this title, the following terms have the following (c) Except for amounts necessary to pay costs of issuance,administrative meanings: costs,and any other costs payable in connection with the bonds,and to retire (a) (1) Accumulated state budget deficit"has the same meaning as in or refund bonds issued and sold pursuant to this title or bonds issued and sold Section 1.3 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. under Title 17(commencing with Section 99000),the remaining balance of (2) The amount referred to in paragraph(1)shall be as certified by the the fund as determined by the committee,shall be transferred to the General Director of Finance. Fund to fund the purposes set forth in this title. (b) Ancillary obligation"means an obligation of the state entered into 99062. Out of the first money realized from the sale of bonds as pro- in connection with any bonds issued under this title,including the following• vided in this chapter, there shall be redeposited in the General Obligation (1) A credit enhancement or liquidity agreement, including an credit Bond Expense Revolving Fund established by Section 16724.5,the amount of q t3 gr g y all expenditures made for purposes specified in that section, and this money enhancement or liquidity agreement in the form of bond insurance, letter of may be used for the same purpose and repaid in the same manner whenever credit,standby bond purchase agreement,reimbursement agreement liquidity additional bond sales are made. facility or other similar arrangement. 99064. The proceeds of the bonds issued and sold pursuant to this (2) A remarketing agreement. chapter shall be available for the purpose of providing an efficient,equitable, (3) An auction agent agreement. and economical means of doing both of the following• (4) A broker-dealer agreement or other agreement relating to the mar- (a) Funding the accumulated state budget deficit,which may be accom- keting of the bonds. plished in part by refunding or repaying bonds issued pursuant to Tttle 17 (5)An interest rate or other type of swap or hedging contract. (commencing with Section 99000). (6) An investment agreement,forward purchase agreement, or similar (b) Paying costs relating to the issuance of bonds under this title,includ- structured investment contract. ing,but not limited to,providing reserves,capitalized interest,and the costs of (c) "Committee"means the Economic Recovery Financing Committee obtaining or entering into any ancillary obligation, costs associated with the createdpursuant to Section 99055. repayment or refunding of thefiscal recovery bonds issuedpursuant to Htle 17 (d) Fund"means the Economic Recovery Fund created pursuant to (commencing with Section 99000),and administrative and other costs associ- Section 99060. ated with implementing the purposes of this title. (e) Resolution"means any resolution,trust agreement,indenture,cer- tificate,or other instrument authorizing the issuance of bonds pursuant to this CHAPTER 4 BOND PROVISIONS title andproviding for their security and repayment. 99065. (a) Subject to subdivision(b), bonds in the total amount of (f) "Trusted'means the Treasurer or a bank or trust company within or fifteen billion dollars($15,000,000,000), not including the amount of any without the state acting as trustee for any issue of bonds under this title and,if refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 99075,or so much thereof there is more than one issue of bonds,the term means the trustee for each issue as is necessary, may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be used for carry- of bonds, respectively. If there are cotrustees for an issue of bonds, trustee" ing out the purposes expressed in this title and to reimburse the General means those cotrustees collectively. Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund,pursuant to Section 16724.5. The bonds,when sold,shall be and constitute a valid and binding obligation of the CHAPTER 2. ECONOMIC RECOVERY State of California,and the full faith and credit of the State of California is FINANCING COMMITTEE hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of,and interest on, 99055. (a) Sole! or the purpose o authorizin the issuance and sale the bonds as the principal and interest become due andpayable.Additionadys y f PrP f g the bonds, when sold,shad he secured by a pledge of revenues and any other pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law of the bonds authorized amounts in the Fiscal Recovery Fund created pursuant to Section 99008. The by this title and the making of those determinations and the taking of other bonds may be secured by different lien priorities on amounts in the Fiscal actions as are authorized by this title, the Economic Recovery Financing Recovery Fund. Committee is hereby created.For purposes of this title,the Economic Recovery (b) The amount of bonds that maybe issued and sold pursuant to sub- Financing Committee is "the committee"as that term is used in the State division(a)shall be reduced by the amount of bonds issued pursuant to Title General Obligation Bond Law(Chapter 4(commencing with Section 16720) 17(commencing with Section 99000), and by the amount of bonds issued of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2). <$ Text of Proposed Laws OVERVIEW OF BOND time impacts, debt payments will increase to about deficit-financing bond would, if sold, result in $2.4 $3.5 billion in 2004-05. As previously authorized billion in added General Fund costs in 2004-05, but currently unsold bonds are marketed, increasing moderately each year until the bonds are outstanding bond debt costs would rise to paid off(in roughly five years). If the $15 billion in approximately $4.1 billion in 2007-08, and slowly bonds authorized by Proposition 57 is used instead decline thereafter if no new bonds are authorized. of the currently authorized deficit-financing bond, Debt-Service Ratio. The level of General Fund the annual debt-service costs would be $1.2 billion debt payments stated as a percentage of state in 2004-05, increasing moderately in subsequent revenues is referred to as the state's debt-service ratio. years. (If the supplemental payments from the This ratio increased in the early 1990s and peaked at budget reserve established by Proposition 58 were slightly over 5 percent in the middle of the decade. included, annual payments could be higher in The ratio currently stands at about 3.3 percent, and individual years.) Because of the lower annual debt is expected to increase to 4.6 percent in 2004-05, repayment amounts and larger volume, however, and further to a peak of 4.9 percent in 2005-06 as these debt-service costs on the proposed bond would currently authorized bonds are sold. be in place for a longer time period—anywhere from nine to 14 years. Effects of Bond Propositions on This Ballot Impacts on Debt-Service Ratio. If the $12.3 There are two bond measures on this ballot: billion in education bonds on this ballot are • Proposition 55, which would authorize the state approved and eventually sold, the ratio would to issue$12.3 billion of general obligation bonds increase to about 5.3 percent in 2006-07 and for construction and renovation of public K-12 decline thereafter. If the debt service on the currently schools and higher education facilities. authorized deficit-financing bond is included in this calculation, the total debt-service ratio would jump • Proposition 57, which would authorize the state to between 8 percent and 8.5 percent per year until to issue a $15 billion bond to address the state's the bond is paid off (probably in 2009-10). If, budget shortfall. This bond would be used however, the bond proposed in Proposition 57 is instead of the currently authorized $10.7 billion approved and sold instead of the currently deficit-financing bond. authorized bond, the ratio would increase by less in The impacts of these measures on the state's debt the near term—to between 6.4 percent and 6.9 situation are discussed below percent annually between 2004-05 and 2008-09. Impacts on Debt Payments. If the$12.3 billion in However, this higher ratio would remain in place for bonds for education facilities authorized by a longer time period,since the proposed bond would Proposition 55 on this ballot are approved and take longer to pay off. (If supplemental payments eventually sold, there would be additional debt- from the budget reserve created by Proposition 58 service payments averaging over $800 million a year are included, the ratio could be higher in individual over the life of the bond. The currently authorized years.) State Bond Debt 17 TEXT OFTROPOSED LAWS Proposition 57 This law proposed by Assembly Bill 9 of the 2003-2004 Fifth (b) The committee consists of all of thefollowing members: Extraordinary Session (Chapter 2, 2003-2004 Fifth Extraordinary (1) The Governor or his or her designee. Session) is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of (2) The Director of Finance. Article XVI of the California Constitution. (3) The Treasurer. This proposed law adds sections to the Government Code;therefore, (4) The Controller. new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. (5) The Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing. (6) The Director of General Services. PROPOSED LAW (7) The Director of Transportation. (c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law,any member may des- ignate(commencing a deputy to act as that member in his or her place and stead far all pur- 8 poses,as though the member were personally present. Government Code,to read: (d) The Legislature finds and declarer that each member of the commit- TITLE 18. THE ECONOMIC RECOVERYBOND ACT tee has previously acted as a member of a similar finance committee. (e)A majority of the members of the committee shad constitute a quo- rum of the committee and may act for the committee. CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS The Director of Finance shall serve as chairperson of the committee. 99050. (a) This title shad be known and may be cited as the Economic Recovery Bond Act. CHAPTER 3. ECONOMIC RECOVERY FUND (b) The Legislature finds and declares that it is essential to the public 99060. (a) Theproceeds of bonds issued and soldpursuant to this title welfare that an efficient,equitable,and alternative source offunding be estab- p p lished in order to preserve public education and critical health and safety pro- shall be deposited in the Economic Recovery Fund,which is hereby established grams that otherwise could not be funded in light of the accumulated state in the State Treasury. budget deficit, and that securing the availability of the proceeds of the bonds (b) Moneys in the fund shall be invested in the Surplus Money proposed to be issued and sold pursuant to this title is the most efficient,equi- Investment Fund,and any income from that investment shall be credited to the table,and economical means available. fund 99051. As used in this title, the following terms have the following (c) Except for amounts necessary to pay costs of issuance,administrative meanings: costs,and any other costs payable in connection with the bonds,and to retire (a) (1) Accumulated state budget deficit"has the same meaning as in or refund bonds issued and sold pursuant to this title or bonds issued and sold Section 1.3 of Article XVI of the California Constitution. under Title 17(commencing with Section 99000), the remaining balance of (2) The amount referred to in paragraph(1)shall be as certified by the the fund as determined by the committee,shall be transferred to the General Director of Finance. Fund to fund the purposes set forth in this title. (b) Ancillary obligation"means an obligation of the state entered into 99062. Out of the first money realized from the sale of bonds as gro- in connection with any bonds issued under this title,including thefollowing. vided in this chapter, there shall be redeposited in the General Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund established by Section 16724 5,the amount of (1) A credit enhancement or liquidity agreement, including any credit all expenditures made for purposes specified in that section, and this money enhancement or liquidity agreement in the form of bond insurance, letter of may be used for the same purpose and repaid in the same manner whenever credit,standby bondpurchase agreement, reimbursement agreement,liquidity additional bond sales are made. facilitys or other similar arrangement. 99064. The proceeds of the bonds issued and sold pursuant to this (2) A remarketing agreement. chapter shall be available for the purpose of providing an efficient,equitable, (3)An auction agent agreement. and economical means of doing both of thefollowing,• (4) A broker-dealer agreement or other agreement relating to the mar- (a) Funding the accumulated state budget deficit,which may be accom- keting of the bonds. plished in part by refunding or repaying bonds issued pursuant to Title 17 (5)An interest rate or other type of swap or hedging contract. (commencing with Section 99000). (6) An investment agreement forward purchase agreement, or similar (b) Paying costs relating to the issuance of bonds under this title,includ- structured investment contract. ing,but not limited to,providing reserves,capitalized interest,and the costs of (c) "Committee"means the Economic Recovery Financing Committee obtaining or entering into any ancillary obligation, costs associated with the created pursuant to Section 99055. repayment or refunding of thefiscal recovery bonds issued pursuant to Title 17 (d) Fund"means the Economic Recovery Fund created pursuant to (commencing with Section 99000),and administrative and other costs associ- Section 99060. ated with implementing the purposes of this title. (e) Resolution"means any resolution, trust agreement, indenture,cer- tificate,or other instrument authorizing the issuance of bonds pursuant to this CHAPTER 4. BOND PROVISIONS title andproviding for their security and repayment. 99065. (a) Subject to subdivision(b), bonds in the total amount of (t) "Trustee"means the Treasurer or a bank or trust company within or fifteen billion dollars($15,000,000,000), not including the amount of any without the state acting as trustee for any issue of bonds under this title and,if refunding bonds issued in accordance with Section 99075,or so much thereof there is more than one issue of bonds,the term means the trustee for each issue as is necessary5 may be issued and sold to provide a fund to be used for carry- of bonds, respectively. If there are cotrustees for an issue of bonds, `trustee" ing out the purposes expressed in this title and to reimburse the General means those cotrustees collectively. Obligation Bond Expense Revolving Fund,pursuant to Section 16724.5. The bonds,when sold,shall be and constitute a valid and binding obligation of the CHAPTER 2. ECONOMIC RECOVERY State of California, and the fuU faith and credit of the State of California is FINANCING COMMITTEE hereby pledged for the punctual payment of both principal of,and interest on, 99055. (a) Solel r the purpose o authorizin the issuance and sale the bonds as the principal and interest become due andpayable.Additionallys yf° P ofauthorizing the bonds, when sold,shall be secured by a pledge of revenues and any other pursuant to the State General Obligation Bond Law of the bonds authorized amounts in the Fiscal Recovery Fund created pursuant to Section 99008. The by this title and the making of those determinations and the taking of other bonds may be secured by different lien priorities on amounts in the Fiscal actions as are authorized by this title, the Economic Recovery Financing Recovery Fund. Committee is hereby created.For purposes of this title,the Economic Recovery (b) The amount of bonds that maybe issued and sold pursuant to sub- Financing Committee is "the committee"as that term is used in the State division(a)shall be reduced by the amount of bonds issued pursuant to Title General Obligation Bond Law(Chapter 4(commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2). 17(commencing with Section 99000), and by the amount of bonds issued S Text of Proposed Laws TEXT OF ' ! • Proposition 57 (cont.) pursuant to the California Pension Obligation Financing Act (Chapter 7 in the Fiscal Recovery Fund are deemed insufficient to make these payments, (commencing with Section 16910)of Part 3 of Division 4 of Title 2),except pursuant to an estimate terrified by the Director of Finance and approved by to the extent those bonds will be retired defeased,or redeemed with the pro- the committee,there shall be collected each year and in the same manner and ceeds of bonds authorized by this title. at the same time as other state revenue is collected,in addition to the ordinary (c) Pursuant to this section,the Treasurer shall sell the bonds authorized revenues of the state,a sum in an amount required to pay the principal of,and by the committee. The bonds shall be sold upon the terms and conditions spec- interest on,the bonds and the payment of any ancillary obligations for which fed in a resolution to be adopted by the committee pursuant to Section 16731 payment is authorized by this title and for which the full faith and credit of and Section 99070. Whenever the committee deems it necessary for an effec- the state has been pledged.It is the duty ofall officers charged by law with any rive sale of the bonds, the committee may authorize the Treasurer to sell any duty in regard to the collection of the revenue to do and perform each and every issue of bonds at less than their par value.Notwithstanding Section 16754.3, act that is necessary to collect that additional sum. the discount with respect to any issue of the bonds shall not exceed 3 percent of 99072. (a) Notwithstanding Section 13340,there is hereby continu- the par value thereof,net of any premium. ously appropriated from the Fiscal Recovery Fund established pursuant to 99066. The bonds authorized by this title shall be prepared executed Section 99008 an amount that will equal the total of the following.• issued sold paid,and redeemed as provided in the State General Obligation (1) The sum annually necessary to pay the principal of,and interest on, Bond Law (Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 16720) of Part 3 of bonds issued and sold as described in Section 99070, as the principal and Division 4 of Title 2),and all of the provisions of that law,except subdivisions interest become due and payable,together with any amount necessary to satis- (a)and(b)of Section 16727 or any other provision in that law that is incon- fy any reserve and coverage requirements in the resolution. sistent with the terms of this title,apply to the bonds and to this title and are (2) The sum necessary to pay any ancillary obligations entered into in hereby incorporated in this title as though set forth in full in this title. connection with the bonds. 99067. For purposes of this title,the Department of Finance is desig- (3)Any trustee and other administrative costs incurred in connection nated the board"as that term is used in the State General Obligation Bond with servicing the bonds and ancillary obligations. Law. (4) Redemption, retirement, defeasance or purchase of any bonds as 99069. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, or of the authorized by the committee prior to their stated maturity dates. State General Obligation Bond Law, if the Treasurer sells bonds pursuant to (b) Notwithstanding Section 13340, if the funds appropriated by sub- this title that include a bond counsel opinion to the effect that the interest on division(a)are estimated to be insufficient to meet the requirement specified the bonds is excluded from gross income for federal tax purposes subject to des- in paragraphs(1)to(4),inclusive,ofsubdivision(a),as approved pursuant to ignated conditions,the Treasurer may maintain separate accounts for the bond Section 99071, there is hereby continuously appropriated from the General proceeds invested and for the investment earnings on those proceeds,and may Fund for the purposes of this chapter,an amount that will provide sufficient use or direct the use ofthose proceeds or earnings to pay any rebate,pena4 or revenues to meet whatever requirements specified in paragraphs(1) to (4), other payment required under federal law or take any other action with respect inclusive, of subdivision(a)cannot be met from revenues appropriated from to the investment and use of those bond proceeds that is required or desirable the Fiscal Recovery Fund. under federal law in order to maintain the tax-exempt status of those bonds (c) The sales and use tax revenues received pursuant to Sections 6051.5 and to obtain any other advantage under federal law on behalf of thefunds of and 6201.5 of the Revenue and Taxation Code and deposited into the Fiscal this state. Recovery Fund are hereby irrevocably pledged to the payment of principal and 99070. (a) (1) The committee shall determine whether or not it is interest on the bonds issued pursuant to this title,to payment of any ancillary necessary or desirable to issue bonds authorized pursuant to this title in order obligations, and to costs necessary for servicing and administering the bonds to carry out the purposes ofthis title and,ifso,the amount of bonds to be issued and ancillary obligations. The Legislature may elect to deposit additional rev- and sold the times at which the proceeds of the bonds authorized by this title enues in the Fiscal Recovery Fund. The pledge of this subdivision shall vest shall be required to be available,and those other terms and conditions far the automatically upon execution and delivery of any resolution or agreement bonds authorized by this title as it shall determine necessary or desirable. relating to ancillary obligations, without the need for any notice or filing in (2) In addition to all other powers specifically granted in this title and any office or location. the State General Obligation Bond Laub the committee may do all things nec- 99074. All money deposited in the Economic Recovery Fund that is essary or convenient to carry out the powers and purposes of this title,includ- derived from accrued interest on bonds sold shall be reserved in that fund and ing the approval of any indenture and any ancillary obligation relating to shall be available for transfer to the Fiscal Recovery Fund as a credit to expen- those bonds,and the delegation of necessary duties to the chairperson,and to ditures for bond interest. the Treasurer as agent for sale of the bonds. 99075. The bonds may be refunded in accordance with Article 6 (3) The committee shall determine the amount of the bonds to be issued (commencing with Section 16780)of Chapter 4 of Part 3 of Division 4 of so that the net proceeds of the bonds issued to fund the accumulated budget Title 2,which is a part of the State General Obligation Bond Law.Approval deficit, when added to the net proceeds of any bonds issued pursuant to Dtk by the electors of the state for the issuance of the bonds described in this title 17(commencing with Section 99000)for that purpose, exclusive of bonds shall include approval of the issuance of any bonds issued to refund any bonds issued pursuant to this title for the purpose of refunding bonds issued pursuant originally issued under this title or any previously issued refunding bonds. to this title or Title 17(commencing with Section 99000),will not exceed fif- 99076 The Legislature hereby finds and declares that, inasmuch as teen billion dollars($15,000,000,000)in the aggregate.Nothing in this sec- the proceeds from the sale of bonds authorized by this title are not proceeds of tion shall be construed to limit the ability of the committee to authorize the taxes"as that term is used in Article XIII B of the California Constitution,the issuance of any amount of bonds that it shall determine necessary or appropri- disbursement of these proceeds is not subject to the limitations imposed by that ate to accomplish the purposes of this title,including the refunding or redemp- article. tion of the bonds issued pursuant to Title 17 (commencing with Section 99000),subject to the limit on the total amount of bonds set forth in Section 99077. The state hereby pledges and agrees with the holden of any 99065. bonds issued pursuant to this title that it will not reduce the rate of imposition (b) Successive issues of bonds may be authorized and sold to carry out of either of the taxes imposed pursuant to Sections 6051.5 and 6201.5 of the those actions progressively,and it is not necessary that all of the bonds author- Revenue and Taxation Code, which generate the revenue deposited in the ized to be issued be sold at any one time.In addition to all other powers specif- Fiscal Recovery Fund. ically granted in this title and the State General Obligation Bond Law, the SEC.8. Sections 1 to 4.20,inclusive,of this act shall become oper- committee may do all things necessary or convenient including the delegation alive only if both of the following occur: Of necessary duties to the chairperson and to the Treasurer as agent for sale of (a) ACA 5 of the 2003-04 Fifth Extraordinary Session is submitted the bonds,to carry out the powers and purposes of this title, to and approved by the voters at the March 2,2004,statewide primary 99071. The principal of and interest on the bonds and the payment election. of any ancillary obligations shall be payable from and secured by a pledge of (b) The voters adopt the Economic Recovery Bond Act,as set forth all state sales and use tax revenues in the Fiscal Recovery Fund established pur- in Section 3 of this act. suant to Section 99008 and any earnings thereon. To the extent that moneys Text of Proposed Laws 19 TEXT OF ' ! ! Proposition 58 This amendment proposed by Assembly Constitutional Amendment proclamation, the Legislature may not act on any other bi14 nor may the 5 of the 2003-2004 Fifth Extraordinary Session (Resolution Chapter 1, Legislature adjourn for a joint recess, until that bill or those bills have been 2003-2004 Fifth Extraordinary Session)expressly amends the California passed and sent to the Governor. Constitution by adding sections thereto and amending sections thereof; (3) A bill addressing the focal emergency declared pursuant to this sec- therefore,existing provisions proposed to be deleted are printed in eeri4te tion shall contain a statement to that effect. atit type and new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type Second—That Section 12 of Article IV is amended to read: to indicate that they are new. SEC. 12. (a) Within the first 10 days of each calendar year,the Governor shall submit to the Legislature,with an explanatory message,a PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO ARTICLES IV AND XVI budget for the ensuing fiscal year containing itemized statements for rec- ommended state expenditures and estimated state revenues. If recom- First—That Section 10 of Article IV is amended to read: mended expenditures exceed estimated revenues,the Governor shall rec- SEC. 10. (a) Each bill passed by the Legislature shall be presented ommend the sources from which the additional revenues should be pro- to the Governor.It becomes a statute if it is signed by the Governor.The vided. Governor may veto it by returning it with any objections to the house of (b) The Governor and the Governor-elect may require a state origin, which shall enter the objections in the journal and proceed to agency, officer, or employee to furnish whatever information is deemed reconsider it.If each house then passes the bill by rollcall vote entered in necessary to prepare the budget. the journal, ewe-dna two-thirds of the membership concurring, it (c) (1) The budget shall be accompanied by a budget bill itemizing becomes a statute. recommended expenditures.The (b) (1) Any bill,other than a bill which would establish or change (2) The budget bill shall be introduced immediately in each house by boundaries of any legislative, congressional, or other election district, the persons chairing the committees that consider appropriations.4;he the passed by the Legislature on or before the date the Legislature adjourns for budget. a joint recess to reconvene in the second calendar year of the biennium of (3) The Legislature shall pass the budget bill by midnight on June 15 the legislative session,and in the possession of the Governor after that date, of each year.;httil that is not returned within 30 days after that date becomes a statute. (4) Until the budget bill has been enacted,the Legislature shall not (2) Any bill passed by the Legislature before September 1 of the sec- send to the Governor for consideration any bill appropriating funds for and calendar year of the biennium of the legislative session and in the pos- expenditure during the fiscal year for which the budget bill is to be enact- session of the Governor on or after September 1 that is not returned on or ed,except emergency bills recommended by the Governor or appropria- before September 30 of that year becomes a statute. tions for the salaries and expenses of the Legislature. (3) Any other bill presented to the Governor that is not returned (d) No bill except the budget bill may contain more than one item within 12 days becomes a statute. of appropriation, and that for one certain, expressed purpose. (4) If the Legislature by adjournment of a special session prevents Appropriations from the General Fund of the State,except appropriations the return of a bill with the veto message,the bill becomes a statute unless for the public schools,are void unless passed in each house by rollcall vote the Governor vetoes the bill within 12 days after it is presented by deposit- entered in the journal, ene Atkds two-thirds of the membership concur- ing it and the veto message in the office of the Secretary of State. ring. (5) If the 12th day of the period within which the Governor is (e) The Legislature may control the submission, approval, and required to perform an act pursuant to paragraph(3)or(4)of this subdi- enforcement of budgets and the filing of claims for all state agencies. vision is a Saturday,Sunday,or holiday,the period is extended to the next 0 For the 2004-05 fiscal year, or any subsequent fiscal year, the day that is not a Saturday,Sunday,or holiday. Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the (c) Any bill introduced during the first year of the biennium of the Governor sign into law,a budget bill that would appropriate from the General legislative session that has not been passed by the house of origin by Fund,for that focal year,a total amount that,when combined with all appro- January 31 of the second calendar year of the biennium may no longer be priations from the General Fund for that focal year made as of the date of the acted on by the house.No bill may be passed by either house on or after budget bill's passage,and the amount ofany General Fund moneys transferred September 1 of an even-numbered year except statutes calling elections, to the Budget Stabilization Account for that focal year pursuant to Section 20 statutes providing for tax levies or appropriations for the usual current of Article XVI,exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year estimated as expenses of the State, and urgency statutes, and bills passed after being of the date of the budget bills passage. That estimate of General Fund revenues vetoed by the Governor. shall be set forth in the budget billpassed by the Legislature. (d) The Legislature may not present any bill to the Governor after Third—That Section 1.3 is added to Article XVI thereof,to read: November 15 of the second calendar year of the biennium of the legisla- SEC. 1.3. (a) For the purposes of Section 1,a"single object or work," tive session. for which the Legislature may create a debt or liability in excess of three hun- (e) The Governor may reduce or eliminate one or more items of dred thousand dollars ($300,000)subject to the requirements set forth in appropriation while approving other portions of a bill.The Governor shall Section 1, includes the funding of an accumulated state budget deficit to the append to the bill a statement of the items reduced or eliminated with the extent,and in the amount,that funding is authorized in a measure submitted reasons for the action.The Governor shall transmit to the house originat- to the voters at the March 2,2004,statewide primary election. ing the bill a copy of the statement and reasons.Items reduced or eliminat- (b) As used in subdivision(a), "accumulated state budget deficit"means ed shall be separately reconsidered and may be passed over the Governor's the aggregate of both of thefollowing,as certified by the Director of Finance: veto in the same manner as bills. (1) The estimated negative balance of the Special Fund for Economic (/) (1) If,following the enactment of the budget bill for the 2004-05 Uncertainties arising on or before June 30,2004, not including the effect of focal year or any subsequent focal year,the Governor determines that,for that the estimated amount of net proceeds of any bonds issued or to be issued pur- f scal year,General Fund revenues will decline substantially below the estimate sant to the California Fiscal Recovery Financing Act(7"itle 17(commencing of General Fund revenues upon which the budget bill for that fiscal year,as with Section 99000)of the Government Code)and any bonds issued or to be enacted, was based, or General Fund expenditures will increase substantially issued pursuant to the measure submitted to the voters at the March 2,2004, above that estimate of General Fund revenues,or both,the Governor may issue statewide primary election as described in subdivision(a). a proclamation declaring a fiscal emergency and shall thereupon cause the (2) Other General Fund obligations incurred by the State prior to June Legislature to assemble in special session for this purpose. The proclamation 30,2004,to the extent not included in that negative balance. shall identify the nature of the focal emergency and shall be submitted by the Governor to the Legislature,accompanied by proposed legislation to address the (c) Subsequent the issuance of any state bonds described in subd[vi- fucal emergency. sion (a), the State mayy not obtain moneys to fund a year-end state budget deficit, as may be defined by statute,pursuant to any of the following.- (1) (m If the Legislature fails to past and send to the Governor a bill or bills to address the fiscal emergency by the 45th day following the issuance of the tion under incurred pursuant to Section 1 io this article, so a debt obliga- tion under which funds to repay that obligation are derived solely from ades- 20 Text of Proposed Laws TEXT OF ' ! ! i LAWS Proposition 58 (cont.) ignated source of revenue,or(3)a bond or similar instrument for the borrow- (d) Subject to any restriction imposed by this section,funds transferred ing of moneys for which there is no legal obligation of repayment. This subdi- to the Budget Stabilization Account shall be deemed to be General Fund rev- vision does not apply to funding obtained through a short-term obligation enues for all purposes of this Constitution. incurred in anticipation of the receipt of tax proceeds or other revenues that (e) The transfer of moneys from the General Fund to the Budget may be applied to the payment of that obligation,for the purposes and not Stabilization Account may be suspended or reduced for a fiscal year as speci- exceeding the amounts of existing appropriations to which the resulting pro- fied by an executive order issued by the Governor no later than June I of the ceeds are to be applied.For purposes of this subdivision, year-end state budg- preceding focal year. et deficit"does not include an obligation within the accumulated state budget (J) (1) Of the moneys transferred to the account in each focal year,50 deficit as defined by subdivision(b). percent, up to the aggregate amount of five billion dollars($5,000,000,000) Fourth—That Section 20 is added to Article XVI thereof,to read: for all fiscal years,shall be deposited in the Deficit Recovery Bond Retirement SECTION 20. (a) The Budget Stabilization Account is hereby creat- Sinking Fund Subaccount,which is hereby created in the account for the pur- ed in the General Fund. pose of retiring deficit recovery bonds authorized and issued as described in (b) In each f scat year as specified in paragraphs(1)to(3),inclusive,the Section 1.3,in addition to any other payments provided for by law for the pur- Controller shall transfer from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization pose of retiring those bonds. The moneys in the sinking fund subaccount are Account the following amounts: continuously appropriated to the Treasurer to be expended for that purpose in (1) No later than September 30,2006,a sum equal to I percent of the the amounts, at the times, and in the manner deemed appropriate by the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the 2006-07 focal year. Treasurer.Any funds remaining in the sinking fund subaccount after all of the (2) No later than September 30,2007,a sum equal to 2 percent of the deficit recovery bonds are retired shall be transferred to the account,and may estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the 2007-08 fiscal year. be transferred to the General Fund pursuant to paragraph(2). (3) No later than September 30,2008,and annually thereafter,a sum (2) All other funds transferred to the account in a focal year shall not be equal to 3 percent of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for the deposited in the sinking fund subaccount and may,by statute,be transferred to current fiscal year. the General Fund. (c) The transfer of moneys shall not be required by subdivision(b)in Fifth—That this measure shall become operative only if the bond measure described in any fiscal year to the extent that the resulting balance in the account would Section t of Article XVI of the Constitution, as exceed 5 percent of the General Fund revenues estimate set forth in the budget added by this measure,is submitted to and approved by the voters at the bill for that focal year,as enacted,or eight billion dollars($8,000,000,000), March — statewide primary election. whichever is greater. The Legislature mads by statute,direct the Controller,for Sixth—That this measure shall be submitted to the voters at the one or more fiscal years,to transfer into the account amounts in excess of the March 2,2004,statewide primary election. levels prescribed by this subdivision. Text of Proposed Laws 21 Secretary of State PRSRT STD 1500 11th Street U.S.POSTAGE Sacramento,CA 95814 PAID SECRETARY OF STATE �LL � *ELECTIA MAIL Authorized hy.'he U.S Postal Service Ept 0. N � N,p Primary Election ....................................................................................................................... English: 1-800-345-VOTE (8683) Espanol/Spanish: 1-800-232-VOTA (8682) H p/Japanese: 1-800-339-2865 Viet ngii/Vietnamese: 1-800-339-8163 Tagalog/Tagalog: 1-800-339-2957 'J'X/Chinese: 1-800-339-2857 a}-S-, oj/Korean: 1-866-575-1558 www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov Official Voter Information Guide .................-.......................... .... .._...._.._. ..........................- __....-1- SUPPLEMENTAL . .SUPPLEMENTAL In an effort to reduce election costs, the State Legislature has authorized the State and counties to mail only one guide to addresses where more than one voter with the same surname resides. You may obtain additional copies by writing to your county elections official or by calling 1-800-345-VOTE. �•r Easy Voter Guide -- California Pagel of 2 : Easy Voter w"" I Home !`irvat t,-vote The next elech4n fro-er)r,..sents you Ak,"cul the:ss'uFes Co mtlurldy ch nge The next election MARCH 2, 2004 PRIMARY ELECTION Proposition 58: Requiring a Balanced Budget Official Title: The California Balanced Budget Act. THE WAY IT IS NOW: After a strong economy in the late 1990's, income to state government began to drop in 2001. The state budget has fallen badly out of balance. Large deficits have been carried over from year to year. The state faces at least a $15 billion shortfall in the 2004-05 budget next year. WHAT PROP 58 WOULD DO: Change the State Constitution so that a balanced budget must be passed each year. If the governor sees the budget beginning to fall out of balance during the year, the legislature is required to take action. Prop 58 also sets up a special reserve account that is set up to reach $8 billion (5% of the General Fund). Prop 58 would ban the use of certain borrowing to cover state deficits. The $15 billion bond in Prop57 must pass for Prop 58 to go into effect. EFFECT ON STATE BUDGET: Prop 58 could change the state budget in different ways: • Requiring a balanced budget each year could head off budget shortfalls in the future • The larger reserve could make state spending more stable from year to year • Balanced budgets and less borrowing would help the state's credit rating and lower interest costs ARGUMENTS FOR ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROP 58: IN PROP 58: Prop 58 closes loopholes. Never again Prop 58 has no spending limit. The will the state be able to spend more state can still balance the budget with than it has coming in. It also sets up a more borrowing. good reserve for the future. Prop 58, with Prop 57, is a good plan to Prop 58 suspends, for this one time, fix the state budget crisis. It prevents the rule in the Constitution against the current situation from ever borrowing to cover deficits. Borrowing happening again. should be limited to long term projects like parks and roads that will benefit future generations. website http://www.easyvoter.org/califomia/nextelection/2004-primary/prop58.html 1/28/2004 Easy Voter Guide -- California Page 2 of 2 The arguments for and against this proposition are opinions of people who support or oppose it. back to Propositions http://www.easyvoter.org/califomia/nextelection/2004-primary/prop5 8.html 1/28/2004 Easy Voter Guide -- California Page 1 of 1 S-1-11 ""r" , Easy\file, � . Horne How to vote The next a action Who represents you About he issues Commundv change The next election MARCH 2, 2004 PRIMARY ELECTION Proposition 57: Bonds to Help State Budget Official Title: The Economic Recovery Bond Act THE WAY IT IS NOW: Since 2001, the money coming into the state budget has not been able to cover expenses. Even after cutting programs and raising revenues, there is still a shortfall (deficit). The budget for the current year had planned to use a $10.7 billion bond to help cover this shortfall. That bond has been challenged in court. Without that bond, the state could run out of cash by June. WHAT PROP 57 WOULD DO: Allow the state to sell $15 billion in bonds to help balance the state budget. It will take between 9 and 14 years to pay off the bonds. This would be instead of the $10.7 billion bond paid off over five years. Prop 58 needs to be approved for Prop 57 to go into effect. EFFECT ON STATE BUDGET: There would be $4 billion more now to help with budget shortfall. The bond will be repaid by one quarter of a cent (1/4 of 1�) of state sales tax which equals about $1.2 billion each year. It will take between 9 and 14 years to pay off this bond (compared to 5 years for the $10.7 billion bond). ARGUMENTS FOR ARGUMENTS AGAINST PROP 57: N PROP 57: The Prop 57 bond keeps California from California should not get deeper into running out of cash without having to debt. This is a huge bond, equal to raise taxes or make deep cuts in $2,000 for every family in California to education or health care. pay it off. This is a one-time solution. Prop 58 will Prop 57 does nothing about the out of make sure we don't have to do this control spending that got us into this again. mess. We have to stop overspending now. website website The arguments for and against this proposition are opinions of people who support or oppose it. back to Propositions http://www.easyvoter.org/califomia/nextelection/2004-primary/prop57.html 1/28/2004 Senator Tom McClintock Page 1 of 2 i1 111 «... 111«. . . -«« •« r � i k T. Forget the Alligators Drain the Swamp A Column by Senator McClintock Enter your E Masi Published in the Sacramento Bee - January 18, 2004 There's an old adage that comes to mind when reading the Governor's budget: "\ up to your eyeballs in alligators, it's hard to remember that you came to drain th The practical application of that adage will define the success or failure of this administration, and with it, of California. The fatal mistake would be to believe t most important budget issue facing the administration is the 2004-05 budget. It i! Contribute much more critical issue is whether and how fundamental reforms enacted this yi t al�t, z_�11 decisively shape future budgets. The Governor is right to single out uncontrolled spending in defining the state's d deficit - but it is merely a symptom and not the cause. The root of California's sp problem is the way in which the state applies its resources. Whether this adminis the legislature will concentrate on fundamental changes in the structure and deli systems of the government that will produce vast budget savings in future years i ought to be, the central budget question this year. This is not to excuse the borrowing and bookkeeping gimmickry in the 2004-05 bu Ironically, it doesn't meet any of the tests of the so-called "Balanced Budget Am( the administration is sponsoring as Proposition 58 - which may explain why that p contains more escape clauses than Britney Spears' wedding vows. The budget is not balanced. Indeed, when the bookkeeping gimmicks are unravel, at least $3.5 billion more than incoming tax revenues. It does not foreswear born Indeed, it relies on exactly the same sort of loans that Davis used to get into this although in smaller amounts. It does not contain the required three percent reser the budget reserve is less than one percent - and half of that is borrowed. That's just the beginning, but it's also beside the point. The real fiscal battle is over future budgets. Every year, the difficult, complicate controversial long-term reforms that are vital to restoring the state's financial he pushed aside in the frantic scramble to pass a quick fix, get-out-of-town-alive buy http://tommcclintock.com/newsroom/details.cftn?pr_id=PR040118A 1/28/2004 Senator Tom McClintock Page 2 of 2 Siren's song that has seduced and wrecked previous administrations, and the Gov keep his bearings fixed on how reforms adopted this year will affect all of his buc come. To that end, the Governor has outlined a series of sweeping changes in the funda structure of the government. They have received scant attention in the pundits' i dissect budget numbers - but are the most profound and far-reaching parts of the and if adopted this year, all of the infirmities of his 2004-05 budget will soon be 1 The centerpiece of his State of the State address was his proposal for a Performai Commission. The recommendations of previous commissions have simply been ign it is given real teeth to effect a reorganization of the bureaucracies - "blowing uF he put it - it promises to be one of the most significant reforms in two generatior But that's just the start. The Governor has also proposed a constitutional amendr provide for the contracting out of state services, he has demanded real workers' compensation reform, and he has taken the first steps to bring California's welfai conformity with the federal welfare reform act. He is pushing to transfer funds fr hole of school finance - categorical programs - directly into the classroom and to management of those funds to the people directly involved in classroom instructi, He can go even further. Replacing the Healthy Families Program with a pre-paid, tax credit would provide far broader coverage at far lower cost than the expensiN bureaucratic model now in place. Implementing a bounty program for private auc expose fraud in the Medi-Cal system would succeed where internal audits conduc bureaucracies have failed. The total savings - and improved services -- inherent in these reforms would maks future budgets much easier. But enacting them in time for next year's budget is t difficult and demanding task that any California governor has faced in nearly a ce Judging from his public comments, Gov. Schwarzenegger understands this and juc actions to date, he has the singular determination and focus to succeed. And once the swamp is drained, the alligators will go away. V1 Q Paid for by Tom McClintock for State Senate • Contact Us • Refund and Privacy Polic http://tommcclintock.com/newsroom/details.cfin?pr_id=PRO40118A 1/28/2004 Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act - California State Government Page 1 of 3 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund State of California March 2, 2004 Election � . Proposition 58 %ter The California Balanced Budget Act A State of California Legislative Constitutional Amendment - Majority Approval Required See Also: Index of all Propositions Information shown below: Summary I Fiscal Impact(YesN.o_Meaning Impartial Analis I Arguments I Full Text Official Information Should the state Constitution be amended to require that the state adopt a balanced budget and provide for mid year Secretary of State adjustments if the budget falls out of balance?Should the Constitution also include state budget reserve requirements and • Voter Information Guide Lor limits on future borrowing to finance budget deficits? Props 55 and 56) • Supplemental Voter Information Summary Prepared by the State Attorney General: Guide(for Props 57 and 58) paGV40�1- ance Requires enactment of a bald budget where General Fund • Cal-Access Campaign Finance q g Information expenditures do not exceed estimated General Fund revenues. Allows the Governor to proclaim a fiscal emergency in specified Legislative Analysts's Office circumstances, and submit proposed legislation to address the . Detailed analysis of Prop 58 fiscal emergency. • An Overview of State Bond Debt Requires the Legislature to stop other action and act on legislation proposed to address the emergency. Nonpartisan Information Establishes a budget reserve. League of Women Voters - Provides that the California Economic Recovery Bond Act Analysis (Proposition 57) is for a single object or work. • Easy Voter Guide for Proposition 58 Prohibits any future deficit bonds. • Easy Voter Guide-Download the guide in English,SDanis.h, Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst: Chinese,Vietnamese,or Korean • Pros&Cons of Proposition 58 Unknown net state fiscal effects,which will vary year by year and • In Depth Analysis of depend in part on actions of future Legislatures. Proposition 58-for those who want more Reserve provisions may smooth state spending, with reductions during economic expansions and increases during downturns. League of Women Voters - Background Balanced budget and debt limitation provisions could result in more immediate actions to correct budgetary shortfalls. • Background Information on Ballot Measures-Learn about Meanie of Voting Yes/No California Law-Making and Meaning g Your Vote A YES vote of this measure means: • Criteria for Evaluating Ballot http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/state/prop/58/ 1/28/2004 Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act - California State Government Page 2 of 3 A YES vote on this measure means: The State Constitution Propositions would be amended to provide for: (1) the enactment of a • Initiative&Referendum balanced state budget, (2) state budget reserve requirements, Process and (3) limits on future borrowing to finance state budget deficits. Events A NO vote of this measure means: LWV Pros & Cons Public A NO vote on this measure means: The State Constitution Meetings would not be amended to add new requirements on state budgetary practices. • Come to a meeting in your community where League experts discuss all state ballot Impartial Analysis from the Legislative Analyst propositions giving a (will be entered later) nonpartisan analysis.Consult your Smart Voter county page for dates,times and locations. Partisan Information Supporters • Join Arnold-Phone: 916-442- 7757 Opponents • San Diego Tax Fighters- Phone: 858-530-3027 Email: ITider@_san.iT.com Suggest a link related to ProPosltion_5 S Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement. Arguments For Proposition 58 Arguments Against Proposition 58 Proposition 58, the California Balanced Budget At a time when our state has the lowest credit Act, will require for the first time, that the rating in the nation, politicians want to borrow Governor and Legislature pass a balanced budget. $15 billion more, long term, and, noting that the Constitution won't let them, shred that prohibition It will also require general funds to be put in a with Proposition 58, cynically named the "Rainy Day" fund to build a reserve to protect "Balanced Budget Act." Don't be fooled. California from future economic downturns. Yes, California's constitution prohibits long-term As California faced unprecedented budget borrowing from being used to balance the budget. deficits for the last 3 years, the problem was Proposition 58 will suspend that, while ignored, spending exceeded revenues, and there exempting short-term borrowing. was no process in place to address the fiscal http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/state/prop/58/ 1/28/2004 Proposition 58: The California Balanced Budget Act - California State Government Page 3 of 3 crisis. Proposition 58 will allow the Governor to That contradiction led Daniel Weintraub,perhaps call a Special Session of the Legislature to deal the most respected newspaper columnist in with future fiscal crises. If the Legislature fails to California,to write: "the balanced-budget act within 45 days, then they will not be able to requirement doesn't actually require that recess and they will not be able to pass any other lawmakers approve a balanced budget." legislation. This will force the Governor and the Legislature to work together to find a solution to As for some of its other provisions: California the problem before it is too late. already has a reserve requirement in current law. The Governor already has the power to call the legislature into session to address a developing budget shortfall. We don't need Proposition 58. Full Text of Proposition 58 For the full text of this measure, go to page 20 in the link http //www.ss.ca.gov/elpct, onsNoterGuideSupp.pdf California Home Page 11 Statewide Links 11 About Smart Voter 11 Feedback Created: January 28,2004 02:34 PST Smart Voter<http://www.smartvoter.orgl> Copyright©League of Women Voters of California Education Fund http://ca.III•v.otg The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties. http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/03/02/ca/state/prop/58/ 1/28/2004 Yes on 57 and 58 - Californians for a Balanced Budget Read the Propositions Pagel of 3 Readthe Propositions -vr d BUDGET CALFONAAMSTSURAKEMM S( - YOU CAN Read the Propositions: Proposition 57 Ballot Arguments State government spending in California is out of control. Over the past three years, state spending has significantly exceeded state revenues. The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will consolidate the deficit and ALLOW CALIFORNIA TO GET ITS FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER--WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will keep the state from running out of money and prevent drastic cuts in spending on vital programs like education and health care. The California Economic Recovery Bond Act will not take effect unless voters approve the California Balanced Budget Act, which PROHIBITS BORROWING TO PAY DEFICITS ever again and requires enactment of a BALANCED BUDGET. The California Balanced Budget Act also provides for a fund of up to $5 billion that can be used to PAY THESE BONDS OFF EARLY. It also provides for a RESERVE of at least $8 billion, which can be used to PREVENT FUTURE DEFICITS. Last year, the state approved $12.9 billion in bonds to retire the accumulated budget deficit. The courts have declared one bond issuance unconstitutional and the other is subject to legal challenge because they were not approved by voters. Since then, the state has accumulated a larger budget deficit. PROPOSITION 57 WILL LEGALLY RESTRUCTURE AND REFINANCE THAT DEBT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE VOTERS. Without this bond, the State of California may be out of cash by June. To deal with a calamity of that magnitude in such a short time frame, the only choice will be to drastically increase taxes. The California Economic Recovery Bond will let us refinance our inherited debt and give the state time to deal with its ongoing structural deficit. The California Recovery Bond and the California Balanced Budget Act, Proposition 58, together will give California's leaders the tools necessary to restore confidence in the financial http://www.yes57and58.org/read-57_arguments.html 1/28/2004 Yes on 57 and 58-Californians for a Balanced Budget I Read the Propositions Page 2 of 3 management of the State. Please join Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, the California Taxpayers'Association, State Controller Steve Westly,the California Chamber of Commerce and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in supporting Proposition 57. It is the only way to ensure California's financial future. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,Governor State of California LARRY MCCARTHY, President California Taxpayers'Association ALLAN ZAREMBERG, President California Chamber of Commerce REBUTTAL to Argument Against Proposition 57 The California Legislature has already approved $12.9 billion in bonds to retire the accumulated budget deficit.The California Economic Recovery Bond Act gives the voters the power to APPROVE A SOUND RESTRUCTURING PLAN for California. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed the California Economic Recovery Plan to ALLOW CALIFORNIA TO GET ITS FINANCIAL HOUSE IN ORDER-WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. Without the California Economic Recovery Bond Act, the state could run out of money, leaving no choice but drastic cuts in spending on vital programs like education and health care or a huge tax increase. Proposition 57 will let us refinance our inherited debt and give the state time to deal with its ongoing structural deficit. Remember,the California Economic Recovery Bond Act will not take effect unless voters approve the California Balanced Budget Act. Don't be misled by the opposition,the California Balanced Budget Act will PROHIBIT BORROWING TO PAY DEFICITS ever again and will require enactment of a BALANCED BUDGET. Governor Schwarzenegger needs both Propositions 57 and 58 to pass. It will give him the tools necessary to STOP BORROWING, STOP OVERSPENDING, and PUT OUR FINANCES BACK IN ORDER. Please join Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, the California Taxpayers'Association, State Controller Steve Westly and the California Chamber of Commerce and VOTE"YES" on Proposition 57. It is the only way to ensure California's financial future. http://www.yes57and58.org/read_57arguments.html 1/28/2004 Yes on 57 and 58 - Californians for a Balanced Budget I Read the Propositions Page 3 of 3 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor State of California LARRY MCCARTHY, President California Taxpayers' Association CARL GUARDING, President Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group Home I Read the Propositions I Proposition 57 Ballot Arguments voteYes on d • on http://www.yes57and58.org/read_57_arguments.html 1/28/2004 Join Arnold! Official Website :: Californians for Schwarzenegger Page 1 of 1 Wednesday, January 28, 2004 a • i > Home Agenda Leadership Press Room Contribute Volunteer Abc Home I Press Home I Press Releases I Schwarzenegger and Westly: "Vote`Yes'on GET INFORMED 57 and 58 for a Balanced Budget and No More Deficits" Pe+e•a' Poncy > About Arnold Dawn& > Leadership January 22, 2004 Mu Hm > Endorsements Schwarzenegger and Westly: "Vote 'Yes' on 57 and '. l*rting mel > News Room 58 for a Balanced Budget and No More Deficits" do rTMT > Latest Headlines > Opinion IRWINDALE, CA - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Controller Steve Westly today continued their bipartisan campaign to pass Propositions 57 and 58 by asking Miller Brewing Company employees to help the solve the deficit crisis and make sure it never ` JOIN THE TEAM happens again by voting"Yes"on the two measures. The town hall-style event was > Contribute the second in what will be a series of similar events across the state, headlined by r Schwarzenegger and Westly, in support of 57 and 58. It was organized by > Volunteer "Californians for a Balanced Budget-Yes on 57 and 58,"which they Co-Chair. > Share Your Views • "Californians for a Balanced Budget -Yes on 57 and 58"is a broad and bipartisan coalition of elected officials, business and labor leaders, associations and advocacy SERVICES organizations, as well as regular Californians, who have put aside partisan differences > Image Center in order to come together to put the state's fiscal house in order. Over the coming • " weeks, the campaign will announce a series of endorsements from all sides of the > Multimedia Center political spectrum, designed to show that California voters are united in their support > Downloads of Propositions 57 and 58 on the March 2, 2004 primary election ballot. > Search News "The politicians in Sacramento got us into this mess, and I need the people's help to > Privacy Policy get us out,"stated Gov. Schwarzenegger. "That's why I need everyone to vote"Yes" on Propositions 57 and 58 to make sure this never happens again. Fifty-seven and 58 > Contact Us will make sure California has a balanced budget with no more crippling deficits." "The California Balanced Budget Package does exactly what it says - it gets the budget balanced and keeps it balanced,"said Westly. "Californians have sent a very clear message that we need to clean up our budget mess and get our financial house back in order. Passing Propositions 57 and 58 is the single best thing that California voters can do to restore our state's fiscal health and start us down the road to economic recovery." Proposition 57 provides for a one-time $15 billion Economic Recovery Bond to refinance past budget deficits while interest rates are low. This allows California to start over with a balanced budget and gets the fiscal mismanagement of the past behind us. Proposition 58 makes sure we never get in a deficit crisis again by requiring California politicians to balance the budget every year in the future and prohibiting bond financing of any future deficits. It also creates a "rainy day savings account"to be used for paying the bonds off early and helping the state through any future economic downturns. Contact Us Paid for and maintained by CALIFORNIANS FOR SCHWA Privacy Policy Copyright© 2003 1 Calnet Bi http://wwwjoinamold.com/en/press/pressdetail.php?ld=298 1/28/2004 San Mateo County Times Online - More Headline News Page 1 of 3 a LiL44ff0t, MA>I O COURIAII If'lll"I www.RecycleWorks.org A PROGRAM OF SAN MATEO COUNTY y1� e� CLICK. HERS .. tan m� I 'ii. INSIDEBAYAREA ONLINE STORE CAREERS REAL ESTATE AUTO CLASSIFIEDS TRAVEL Wednesday,January 28,2004 Advertise I Sub<_ Site Search EMAIL ARTI.CLE R LINK TO ARTICLE PRINT ARTICLE r I Article Last Updated: Friday,January 23, 2004 - 8:11:35 AM PST Enter search term Despite weak polling, bond faces no formal Go» opposition DRIVER Click fo Advanced Search By Tom Chorneau,Associated Press I CUS.T.0.1 Marketplace SACRAMENTO—While polls show only a third of California voters support borrowing ! Click fo Real Estate $15 billion to refinance the state's deficit,formal opposition to Proposition 57 appears CareerSite unlikely to coalesce in the six weeks remaining before the March 2 election. Automotive SECRE' Classifieds Despite the polls and the daunting task facing pro-bond forces, none of the state's Click fo Personals major taxpayer groups nor the bond's leading critics--state Treasurer Phil Angelides Place an Ad and Sen.Tom McClintock, R-Northridge--say they are planning any sort of opposition Online Store campaign. FEDERI News The bond measure, largest to ever go before any state electorate, is backed by a Click fo Our Neighborhoods powerful bipartisan coalition led by Gov.Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Controller Local & Regional News Steve Westly,a Democrat. TEACHI More Headline News The Peterson TrialClick fo Election Results Proceeds from the sale would be used to pay off the state's existing deficit and help The Day in Photos make ends meet next year, but at a cost of about$4 billion in interest or$2,000 per Lottery California household. T.EL..E...Ct Traffic OTHER ARTICLES Click fo Weather The lack of organized opposition is a boost for IN THIS SECTION Obituaries Schwarzenegger,whose campaign for the bonds could crumble under even the most modest opposition,observers said. 1/28/2004 SECURI Sports - UC gets fewer Click fo 49ers A survey released last week from the Field Poll found 33 applications Giants percent of likely voters favor the borrowing. Similar results were - CSU to slash Stanford Sports measured in a poll from the Public Policy Institute of California. enrollment by DRIVER Sharks 20,000 this fall Click fo Prep Sports "It's a huge plus for the governor not to have anyone spending - Imports of fresh Raiders money on the other side,"said Bruce Cain, political science veggies squeeze out A's professor at the University of California, Berkeley. "I think any state farmers Warriors opposition would be very bad news. - DMV: First batch A Cal Sports of car tax refunds to Columnists hit mailboxes Friday Turn2 "Schwarzenegger has to do something that is very rare in initiative politics--build up the yes side,"Cain explained."Most -Team to trace measures start off high and come down--he's got to do the Steinbeck tour Business News opposite. It's a tough chore under the best circumstance,the - Plaintiffs sought MondayBusiness.com last thing he wants is anyone opposing him." for suit against Spotlight markets Sunday Feature And so far he's got his wish. - Western Judges rip Op-Ed into new law Opinions/Editorials Angelides, an outspoken critic of the governor's economic - Kerry wins easily Reader's Letters plans and a likely challenger in 2006,said he would not be in N.H. primary spending any of his$10 million campaign war chest to fight the Write aLetter - Poll: Experience Talk Back bonds. bested change in first primary http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87%7E2425%7E 1910228,00.html?s... 1/28/2004 San Mateo County Times Online - More Headline News Page 2 of 3 Bay.A...rea Living 'As treasurer, I feel duty bound to express my opinion," Adult tremor Inside Out Angelides said. "I feel an obligation to fight on the front that (disorder found Food does count--making sure that we have a budget with structural Behind the Wheel balance." Movie Listings Travel If anyone asks,Angelides said, he'll tell them he opposed the borrowing. Beyond that, TV Listings however,"the voters should decide." Soap Opera Recaps Horoscopes This comes even though the treasurer organized a No on 57 campaign in December and spent close to$400,000 of contributors'money on TV ads attacking the governor's Community first plan to borrow the$15 billion. Almanac Bay Area Best What's Up (PDFI McClintock,one of the Legislature's leading conservatives,said he too is not planning to organize a campaign to fight against the bond's passage. Education Back to School "I expect a very one-sided campaign,"said McClintock,who ran against STAR Scores Schwarzenegger in the recall campaign and may run again in 2006."I intend to speak Great Schools out every chance I get against the idea because borrowing is not the solution. But I'm Teacher Support not in a position to bring together a campaign." Services Taxpayer groups,the other likely source for big dollars to fight the bonds,also appear Subscribe disinclined to take up the challenge.The California Taxpayers Association is Delivery Issues supporting the record borrowing;while the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has Change of Address not yet taken a position. Vacation Hold Newsletters Larry McCarthy, president of CalTax,said his group decided the bonds represent the most efficient and least disruptive method for paying off the deficit. McCarthy is even Special Reports serving as a co-chair of the Yes on Proposition 57 committee. 100 Years of Flight Are We Safer Now? He and his supporters argue that without the bonds,the state would be forced to impose deep spending cuts and increase taxes dramatically. About us Contact Info The stakes in this campaign are immense, pundits say. Feedback Place a Classified Ad This is not just about the bond issue—it's a test of Arnold's ability to lead,said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe,a political scientist at the University of Southern California. Schwarzenegger's sweeping victory in the Oct. 7 recall election has made many Democrats nervous given his many threats to bypass the Legislature and take his issues directly to the ballot and even more, his veiled threats to campaign against them. Cain noted that some Democrats would like nothing better than to see the governor and his bonds fail, because such a loss would quickly cut the larger-than-life Schwarzenegger down to size. But, he suggested,the governor's opponents may be holding back because they agree with the governor that without the bond money the state faces massive financial problems. The reality is that they may not want to go eye to eye with the governor with a huge hole in the budget,Cain said.The gamble is that in that situation they might get Arnold to blink and go for a tax increase.Then again, he might not,and then he's cutting everything.> (- RETURN TO TOP Subscribe the San Mateo County Times toda..y.!_ http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/Stories/0,1413,87%7E2425%7E 1910228,00.html?s... 1/28/2004 Voters leery of bonds for debt/ Governor popular, plan isn't, polls say Page 1 of 4 - ': WIN A DAY ON SHASTA LAKEL. > i1 fi cnicws Tom Stie str �.__._ . Quick Search Voters leery of bonds for debt Thursday,January 15,2004 GOiii rancistrn retricic Governor popular, plan isn't, polls ►CHRONICLE SECTIONS Search in: Say John Wildermuth Mark Simon.Chronicle Political Writers ►SFGate Home ►Today's Chronicle poll results Printer-friendly version Email this article to a friend (Cdi'C#RXNtS htfe�. ►Sports let W!a ass Etwni ►Entertainment -M2avi•Prcvx PINORMANCE Chmt*lf obs News& Features Ti?P JOBS ►Business ►Opinion • chart attached ► HOTEL ►Politics Multiple Positions ►Technology Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger is a hit in his Ramada Plaza Hotel ►Science new role as California's governor, but two new ►Weird News statewide polls show it will take every bit of his star ►SALES ►Polls power to gain voter approval of a $15 billion bond Territory Manger ►Photo Gallery measure that's the linchpin of his strategy to deal Wisconsin Co. seeks ►Columnists with the state's budget crisis. ►Travel ►Lottery ► NURSING ,-Obituaries The bond measure, Proposition 57 on the March 2 readyforeverything ballot, would provide the money to pay off the caringforeveryone Personal Shopper state's accumulated debt immediately. The bonds Alameda Cnty Medica_I ►Classifieds would be repaid over the next nine to 14 years. But - ►Jobs polls released today by the Public Policy Institute of ►BANKING ►Personals California and the Field Poll show similarly weak Business Banking Open ►Real Estate backing for the measure. House ►Rentals Citibank ►Vehicles ►WebAds The policy institute poll shows only 35 percent of California voters back the measure, 44 percent ►MACHINISTS Regional oppose it and 22 percent are undecided. The Field for ALL shifts for fast ►Traffic Poll shows 33 percent support the measure, 40 growing So. ►Weather percent oppose it and 27 percent are undecided. ,-Live Views ►ATTORNEY ►Maps Part Time 5-10 hours ►Bay Area Traveler Even more ominously for the measure, the policy week '-Wine Country institute poll found that 52 percent of the state's ►Reno&Tahoe , . ►Ski &Snow likely voters say they are very concerned about , ►Outdoors passing current state debt on to future generations ► MARKETING ►Earthquakes of Californians, while another 35 percent are Fundraising Marketing P Executiv ., ►Schools somewhat concerned. Only 4 percent aren't Sonoma Valley Hosp. 4 ►Entertainment concerned at all. ,-Food & Dining ► ESCROW OFFICER ►Wine And the Field Poll's measure of registered voters Min 2-3 yrs exp Great ►Movies found that while Californians have some confidence Work Environ ►Music& Nightlife that Schwarzenegger can resolve the budget deficit, ►Events ►Performance a substantial majority-- 59 percent--expect tax ►SOUS CHEF ►Art increases will be needed despite the governor's Private Golf Club in ►Books pledge to avoid a tax hike. Sonoma County '-Comics PTV& Radio Ma_yacama Golf Club ►Search Listings "There's not a lot of time for the governor to make his case,"said Mark Baldassare, director of the ►EDUCATION Living policy institute poll. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/15/MNGQA4A... 1/28/2004 Voters leery of bonds for debt/Governor popular, plan isn't, polls say Page 2 of 4 ►Health Schwarzenegger is"still enjoying a honeymoon Son: ►Home&Garden iod," id DiCamillo, Field Poll director. San Diego Schools seeks P ,-Gay& Lesbian ,Persaid MarkPrincipals Horoscope They(voters) like the idea of Schwarzenegger San Diego Schools being the leader of the state, but voters have their Forms.F Resources own opinion about how the budget should be Create ai ►MAINTENANCE polls,fom ,-Search &Archives resolved." to use,fn Feedback/Contacts MANAGER ►Corrections Oakland_Unified Sch Newsletters In his State of the State address earlier this month, Promotions Schwarzenegger called the bond measure critical to ►Site Index the state's financial future and predicted economic ► RETAIL Store Management NIPO_S_o chaos and deep cuts in popular state programs if it Sanrio, Inc. (home Com IetE Service Subscriber doesn't pass. systems Cati,Caw Missed Delivery ► NURSING free dem. ,-Vacation Hold That message hasn't made it to the voters yet. The Nursing Open House •Subscribe policy institute poll showed 61 percent of likely Tues Jan 27th FContact voters oppose borrowing money to ease the state's UCSF Med Center Advertising budget deficit, while 31 percent favor it. Only 34 ►Advertise Online percent of Republicans support bond financing for ►ADMISSIONS F Place Print Ad the state's deficit. DIRECTOR, SENIOR for ►Media Kit nat'I h.s. educ The Field Poll showed strong voter disapproval for another key element of the governor's budget ► HEALTHCARE package: shifting $1 billion in property tax revenue Speech Pathologist from local government to state schools. ►SALES That was opposed by 60 percent of voters. Field Service Rep AUTO-CHLOR SYSTEM "We know we're going to have a real campaign ahead of us,"said Todd Harris, a former ►CONSTRUCTION Schwarzenegger aide who will be involved in the Construction Executive Prop. 57 campaign. "But it's a campaign we're prepared to wage and one we expect to win. " ► MARKETING DIRECTOR: The Schwarzenegger begins the bond campaign with California Walnut Comm substantial popularity, which may help him persuade voters to back his proposal. But the two ►RETAIL SALES polls also show that as the governor takes positions wireless Sales Consultant on key issues, his popularity dwindles. ►INVESTIGATOR Among likely voters, 64 percent believe FEDERAL Schwarzenegger is doing a good job as governor INVESTIGATIONS and 58 percent approve of the way he has handled the state budget, according to the policy institute ►HOTEL poll. Personality Hotels on Union Square i While the new governor has the overwhelming support of California Republicans, 46 percent of the ► REST Democrats and 62 percent of independent voters MGR./ASST. G.M. also like what they've seen from Schwarzenegger, Puccini Rest Group the poll showed. TRAVEL OPS ►MANAGER But the Field Poll's measure of registered voters Lake Tahoe Firm seeks showed 52 percent approve of Schwarzenegger's Manager job as governor and 27 percent disapprove. Along Myths_and Mountains party lines, Field found much deeper divisions with 36 percent of Democrats supporting his job ►SALES performance and 74 percent of Republicans. Amon independents, 46 percent approve of the EMBROIDERY 9 P P PP EQUIPMENT http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/15/NlNGQA4A... 1/28/2004 Voters leery of bonds for debt/Governor popular, plan isn't, polls say Page 3 of 4 governor's performance. The significant difference in the approval rating and NURSING CNRAthe emerging artisans lit may have to do with the PHARMACIST CLINICAL 9 9 P P Y PHARMACIST timing of the polls, DiCamillo said. EMANUEL MEDICAL Most of the policy institute's voter interviews were About Top Jobs conducted before the Jan. 9 State of the State, View All Top Jobs address in which the governor began to outline his budget solutions. The Field Poll began its interviews on Jan. 9, DiCamillo said. "Once you translate the popularity of the governor to specific proposals, you start to lose some of the Democrats," DiCamillo said. Said Baldassare: "At this point, people aren't making the connection between support for Gov. Schwarzenegger and support for the economic recovery bonds. He's going to have to go and talk to people and convince them that this makes sense." Despite the governor's pledge to avoid new taxes, the Field Poll found 59 percent of voters believe it will take a tax increase to resolve the budget crisis, even though they think taxes are high. And if taxes do have to go up, 61 percent said they favor a temporary hike in the income tax from 9.3 percent to 11 percent, and 60 percent said they favor a temporary half-cent increase in the state sales tax. In fact, voter support for income tax and sales tax increases has gone up since Schwarzenegger took office. "The general reason for that is many voters don't think it will apply to them, and that's why socking it to the rich appeals to people," DiCamillo said. The policy institute poll is based on a telephone survey of 2,002 California adults, including 912 likely voters, conducted Jan. 2-11. The sampling error is plus or minus two percentage points for the entire sample and plus or minus three points for likely voters. The Field Poll is based on a telephone survey of 929 registered voters, including 648 likely voters, conducted Jan. 9-13. The sampling error for the likely voter pool is plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. Some questions were asked only of random subsamples of 500 registered voters. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/15/MNGQA4A... 1/28/2004 Voters leery of bonds for debt/ Governor popular, plan isn't, polls say Page 4 of 4 E-mail the writers at_Iwildermuth@sfchronicle.com and msimon bsfchronicle.com. Page A - 1 ' Get 50% off home delivery of the Chronicle for 12 weeks! ©2004 San Francisco Chronicle Feedback FAQ Chronicle Sections m PeopleReal SFGatexom Personals SCHWARZENEGGER POLLS Two recent polls show that Californians have a very favorable vie ArnoldSchwarzenegger but a less than favorable opinion of his bond March 2 ballot, Proposition 57. SCHWARZENEGGER'S JOB PERFORMANCE Public Policy Institute of California results Approve 64% Disapprove 17% Don't know 19%. Field Poll results Approve 52% Disapprove 27% No opinion 21%. VOTER PREFERENCE FOR PROP. 5 Public Policy Institute of California results Yes 35% No 44% Undecided 21%. Field Poll results Yes 33% No 40% Undecided 27% Public Policy Institute sample details: 912 likely California vot interviewedJan. 9-13, and there is a sampling error of plus or mint points. Field Poll sample details: The question regarding Schwarzeneger'e performance was asked Jan. 9-13 among 500 registered voters and ha: error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The question on Prop( was asked Jan. 5-13 among 648 voters considered likely to vote in t election and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 .5 percentage F Sources: Public Policy Institute of California; Field Poll Chronicle Graphic http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgl?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/15/NlNGQA4A... 1/28/2004 SF Gate: Chart Page 1 of 1 Giift.com Voters leery of bonds for debt Governor popular, plan isn't, polls say SCHWARZENEGGER POLLS Two recent polls show that Californians have a very favorable view ArnoldSchwarzenegger but a less than favorable opinion of his bond me March 2 ballot, Proposition 57. SCHWARZENEGGER'S JOB PERFORMANCE Public Policy Institute of California results Approve 64% Disapprove 17% Don't know 19%. Field Poll results Approve 52% Disapprove 27% No opinion 21%. VOTER PREFERENCE FOR PROP. 5 Public Policy Institute of California results Yes 35% No 44% Undecided 21%. Field Poll results Yes 33% No 40% Undecided 27% Public Policy Institute sample details: 912 likely California voter interviewedJan. 9-13, and there is a sampling error of plus or minus points. Field Poll sample details: The question regarding Schwarzeneger's performance was asked Jan. 9-13 among 500 registered voters and has a error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. The question on Proposi was asked Jan. 5-13 among 648 voters considered likely to vote in the election and has a sampling error of plus or minus 3 .5 percentage poi Sources: Public Policy Institute of California; Field Poll Chronicle Graphic http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f'--/chronicle/archive/2004/01/15/MNGQA4AEV... 1/28/2004 Budgetary measures Pagel of 2 FGaft.com www.sfgate.com Return to regular view Budgetary measures Monday,January 26,2004 ©2004 San_Francisco Chronicle I Feedback.I FAQ URL: sfgate.comrartcle.cgi?file=ichronicle/archive/'2004101/26,"BAG504EIF...144.DTL Sacramento -- Ballot initiatives that would change the way the state handles its budget:. MARCH 2 Proposition 56: Would reduce the number of votes required for the Legislature to pass a budget or tax bills from the current two-thirds to 55 percent; also requires that lawmakers and the governor stay in session and permanently lose their salaries until a budget is passed. Proposition 57: A $15 billion debt bond, this measure is backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and most lawmakers as the best way to get out of the state's current financial fix. Proposition 58 must also be approved for it to take effect. Proposition 58: Put on the ballot by lawmakers and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, this proposition would require lawmakers to pass a balanced budget, prohibit future borrowing to balance the budget and create a reserve account. It goes into effect only if voters also approve Prop. 57.. NOV. 2 Several groups are attempting to place these initiatives on the ballot: Local governments: Would require a vote of the people before the state could take away money earmarked for local governments. The measure would close loop-holes in current law that requires the state to reimburse local government and prohibit the state from delaying those payments. This year, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed taking $1.3 billion in local property tax to help the state's budget shortfall. Education: By raising commercial property taxes by 50 percent, the California Teachers Association and actor-director Rob Reiner want to pay for free preschool and improvements to K-12 education. Mental health: Would increase the tax on incomes over$1 million by 1 percent to pay for community mental health programs. It requires the state to develop services including prevention, early intervention, education and training. Budget deficits: Would prevent the state from ever again spending more than it takes in; would set state spending at a level based on population plus per capita personal income; and would create a reserve account for any money that comes in over that cap. That money could be spent for emergencies or when the state does not take in as much revenue as the prior year. ©2004 San Francisco Chronicle I Feedback F http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/01/26/BAG5 04EIF... 1/28/2004 Schwarzenegger uses star power, warnings to back bond deal Page 1 of 2 SFGaftloom www.sfgate.com Return to regular view Schwarzenegger uses star power, warnings to back bond deal TOM CHORNEAU,Associated Press Writer Tuesday,January 27,2004 ©2004 Associated Press URL: s.faate com,article c2i?file=;news/archiv_e_/2004;01/27,'statel916_EST0152.DTL (01-27) 18:13 PST SACRAMENTO (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the man who popularized bodybuilding in the United States, is now confronting something heavier than anything he faced in Gold's Gym -- the task of selling Californians on passing the largest state bond deal in U.S. history. "It is a massive weight that we must lift from the state of California," the new Republican governor told a group in Sacramento Tuesday. "I cannot lift it alone. I never thought I would say I cannot lift a weight, but it is that big. I need help." Gone are the wild rallies of fans and supporters that dominated last year's recall campaign. In their place is a series of intimate town hall events up and down the state before hand- picked audiences and as many reporters and TV news crews as possible. While he mixes humor with talk of"Armageddon" spending cuts and tax hikes, the new Republican governor also relies on a sterile Power Point presentation to deliver his message in support of Proposition 57, a $15 billion bond measure on the March 2 ballot. Schwarzenegger says he needs the money to pay off short-terms loans that come due in June and without them, his campaign has even hinted that failure at the ballot could trigger worldwide financial uncertainty given the state's status as the world' sixth-largest economy. But early polls show voters are skeptical -- only a third favor the record borrowing -- but few who have witnessed the governor's presentation walk away unimpressed. "You could see a lot of people nodding in agreement at the end," said Connie Conway, a Tulare County supervisor who was invited by the governor's office to attend the Schwarzenegger event in Fresno last week. "Call it charisma or salesmanship, either way he's very convincing. People want to trust him." Conway said she is not sure yet which way she will vote,having already seen Schwarzenegger give with one hand while taking with another as part of his budget planning. But as a Republican who voted for him in the recall, she wants to see him succeed. Success depends on a strategy involving a bipartisan coalition of legislators and consultants and Schwarzenegger's expense of considerable political capital. He has committed not only his time to campaign but also his energy to raise as much as $10 million largely for television ads that are expected to begin running next week. Campaign managers hope Schwarzenegger's communications skills and popularity will help pass the bonds and a companion measure, Proposition 58, a constitutional amendment http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/27/state l 916EST01... 1/28/2004 Schwarzenegger uses star power, warnings to back bond deal Page 2 of 2 prohibiting future borrowing and mandating balanced budgets. "Governor Schwarzenegger is immensely interesting to people," said Darry Sragow, a Democratic consultant working on the bond campaign. "I've been to both events we've done so far and I've yet to find anyone who didn't want to meet him and shake his hand. This kind of appeal is something that we have not seen in a long time." But that can take a campaign only so far, observers said, noting the short time between now and the election and that the campaign has only raised about $500,000. Eventually, managers said, the campaign will move to mass media ads and big rallies,but now they're focusing on smaller-scale politics. "The governor is traveling around the state asking voters to help him get us out of the mess," said Todd Harris, spokesman for the campaign, Californians for a Balanced Budget. "He's recruiting the public, bringing them on as part of the team to turn this state around." Schwarzenegger's plan is sound,but not guaranteed, said Harvey Englander, a Democratic consultant in Los Angeles. "People have heard this before -- like in 1978 -- that if you pass Proposition 13 the state will go bankrupt," said Englander, a senior vice president at MWW Group. "This is winnable, but fear doesn't always work." So far, no major opposition has emerged to complicate Schwarzenegger's task and the bond's biggest critic -- California Treasurer Phil Angelides -- says he will not organize a campaign. Still, financial analysts said the warnings the state will run out of cash without the bonds are probably overstated. Instead, the state would have several options to roll over the debt into new loans while suffering only the pain of paying higher interest. The current state budget also includes $10.7 billion of bonds to alleviate the deficit, although those have been delayed by a court challenge. The bigger issue, analysts said, is the longer term solution for California if the bonds are not passed. At some point, most agree, taxes will have to be raised or big spending cuts imposed or some combination. Schwarzenegger's message to voters is that the borrowing, while not the best solution, is better than the alternatives. "He's not asking people to vote for this just because he thinks it's a good idea," said Gale Kaufman, a Democratic strategist. "He's justifying the position. He understands he has to in order to get voters to go along." ©2004 Associated Press http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/01/27/state l 916ESTO I... 1/28/2004 _ Page 1 of 2 San Mateo County Times State Dems battle over deficit bond Party bickers over Arnold's plan,but cheers on Jerry Brown By Steve Geissinger-SACRAMENTO BUREAU Monday,January 19,2004-SAN JOSE—The dispirited and wary California Democratic Party bickered Sunday over Republican Gov.Arnold Schwarzeneggei's deficit bond but echoed past unity and dominance as it cheered former Gov. Jerry Brown's vision of a return to power. "Let's be dispirited for a little while,but not too long,"Oakland's mayor said on the eve of today's tight Democratic presidential caucus in Iowa."Let's get our energy back and keep our focus.We're going to take back the governorship...and the White House." Earlier in the day,state convention delegates voted not to take a position on the new GOP governor's proposed$15 billion bond measure on the March 2 ballot,instead leaving it to party officeholders and officials sometime in the future. The decision came over the objection of labor delegates from the Bay Area and elsewhere who argued Democrats should oppose the bond because Schwarzenegger is relying on major spending cuts and borrowing,without adding tax hikes to the mix. "Assemblymember Wilma Chan has a very good alternative,which is to raise the taxes on the rich,"Howard Egerman,an Alameda County party activist from Oakland,told delegates."I think that's what we as Democrats have to look at." The Oakland lawmaker's bill,backed by numerous Democratic lawmakers from the Bay Area and south state,would temporarily boost personal income tax for the wealthiest Californians as part of the solution to the state's fiscal woes. Party strategists hailed delegates'refusal to take a position on Proposition 57,the deficit bond,and its companion measure, Proposition 58,which seeks to limit state spending. "This is a setback for Schwarzenegger,"even though Democrats did not declare opposition or even neutrality,said Bob Mulholland,an adviser to the state party. Recent polls indicate that although Schwarzenegger,who replaced recalled Democratic Gov.Gray Davis in November,is popular with voters,his deficit bond is in trouble. Though Democratic lawmakers voted to place the measures on the ballot,the party's delay in taking a position may provide the legislators some additional leverage for a time over the new governor,according to analysts. Democratic party strategists said that even GOP support for the deficit bond is wavering,although Schwarzenegger administration officials argue the state will have to borrow to help cover the fiscal gap even if voters reject the bond.The governor is also saying defeat of the bond would mean deeper spending cuts. But Democrats—including Controller Steve Westly,who is campaigning for the deficit bond—said they believe rejection of the proposal would mean something else,too—that Schwarzenegger would have to break campaign vows and pitch a tax hike. In other developments,delegates endorsed: Democratic U.S.Sen.Barbara Boxer for re-election this year. Proposition 55,a$12.3 billion school bond measure,on the March 2 ballot. Proposition 56 on the March 2 ballot,a measure that would permit adoption of the budget on a 55 percent vote in the Democrat-dominated Legislature rather than a two-thirds vote that makes GOP support crucial. http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,87%7E 11268%7E 1901095,... 1/28/2004 Page 2 of 2 - Minor revisions to the party's platform, which lays out traditional Democratic Party core values, such as working to help children, seniors, the poor, minorities and the disabled. In rallying Democratic delegates as the three-day convention wrapped up Sunday, Brown criticized President Bush's policies regarding Iraq and the domestic fight against terrorism. "We are trying to nation build over in Iraq," said Brown. "We can't even nation build in several places in our own country ... We've got to come home and take care of business." The comments came on the eve of today's tight race in Iowa for the Democratic presidential nod to oppose the GOP president's re-election bid this year. Four Democrats -- Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri — remained within a few points of one another going into the caucus. But delegates to the convention in California, which may play a key role in the selection of a Democratic presidential nominee on March 2, did not make endorsements. Democratic National Committee rules bar state parties from endorsing presidential candidates during the primaries. Brown, who is eyeing a run for state attorney general, said the Democratic Party can retake not only the White House but also the governor's office. "Charismatic leadership is what the party needs, as well as to articulate some clear values," Brown said. Contact Sacramento Bureau Chief Steve Geissinger at href="mailto:sgeissinger(a)angnewspapers.com ">sgeissinger@angnewspapers.com . Not only was the East Bay politician criticized for voting for Schwarzenegger as a replacement for Davis in the recall election, but Lockyer also ran into more trouble when he appeared before the women's caucus to apologize for downplaying as "frat- boy behavior" allegations that Schwarzenegger had groped women when he was an actor. After being booed, Lockyer referred to the detractors as "cranky," which some critics branded a sexist comment. Contact Sacramento Bureau Chief Steve Geissinger at href="mailto:sgeissinger@an�c news_papers..co.m ">sgeissinger@angnewspapers.com . http://www.sanmateocountytimes.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,87%7E 11268%7E 1901095,... 1/28/2004 CITYAGENDA 8a. °c ITEM# BURLJNGAME STAFF REPORT ""'' MTG. DATE 2/2/2004 �`W�Tao TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE BY DATE: January 27, 2004 APPROVE BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SU13J CT: ADJUST ASSESSMENT BASIS FOR TRAVELODGE SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT NORTH TO CORRECTLY REFLECT ROOM COUNT FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: Approve adjustment in unit count for assessment basis for the San Francisco Airport North Travelodge, located in South San Francisco to correctly reflect 199 units. DISCUSSION: In December, 2003, the City Council approved the assessments for the 2004 year for the hotels within the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. In reviewing its assessments for the year, the Travelodge in South San Francisco noted that its room count was given as 197, when it actually has 199 rooms in the establishments. The Travelodge notified the Convention Bureau of the difference. The Travelodge's annual assessment will increase from $6,382.80 to $6,447.60. Distribution Travelodge San Francisco Airport North Finance Director, City of South San Francisco Anne LeClair, SMCCVB AGENDA 8b CITY c ITEM# E STAFF REPORT MAG. 2i2iQ4 DATE �Nnt[o TO: Citv Mananer SUBMITTED BY Chief of Police: DATE: uary , 9004 APPROVE FROM: Alfred J. Palmer, Chief of Police BY SUBJECT: Request permission for out of state travel for Officer Farber RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve Officer Heather Farber's attendance, as a coordinator, at the National Law Enforcement Explorer training conference in Atlanta, Georgia from July 19-24, 2004. Through fund raising and her personal contribution, Officer Farber's out of pocket expenses such as air fare and hotel accommodation will be covered. BACKGROUND During the week of July 19-24, 2004, our Explorer Cadets will be attending a National Law Enforcement Explorer Training Conference at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. The training conference will expose our cadets to classroom and other educational seminars, as well as individual and team competitions and social events. The Explorer Cadets are conducting fund raising efforts to defer some of their own personal costs to attend this training conference. Officer Heather Farber, our Explorer Cadet liaison, has done an outstanding job coordinating our Explorer Cadets in support the police department and to assist at City of Burlingame events and functions. She has sacrificed countless hours of her own time on our Explorer Cadet program and she will be covering her own expenses to attend this conference. Officer Farber has approached us requesting that the department allow her to attend this training conference with our Explorer Cadets in lieu of her normal patrol work schedule. Due to the association of the Explorer Cadets with our police department, an adult liaison is required to attend the conference. However, due to the location of this conference(out of state), the City Manager and the City Council must approve her request, authorizing her to attend this training conference in lieu of her normal work schedule. At this time, if Officer Farber was authorized to attend this training conference, no overtime or back fill would be necessary to fill the vacancy on her shift. Based on her performance and commitment to our Explorer Cadet program, as well as there being no anticipated staffing conflicts, I respectfully recommend that you approve Officer Farber's request. ITEM 8C WAS POSTPONED UNTIL NEXT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 17, 2004 A� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 9a ITEM# 'Y�oq 9oe MTG. �AATED JVNEd DATE February 2,2004 TO HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: January 22, 20041 APPROVE ol /!d' Z FROM: City Planner BY SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Actio' on the Environmental Impact Report, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permits, Parking Dimension Variance, Parcel Map for Lot Merger and Reconfiguration of Lots; Consolidation and Reconfiguration of two City-owned Public Parking Lots for the Safeway Project Located at 1450 Howard Avenue ACTION: The City Council should hold a public hearing on the Safeway Project and on the Final Environmental Impact Report (consisting of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments Document, and Supplement Nos. 1 and 2 to the Response to Comments Document). After the public hearing the Council should consider the following Action Alternatives: 1. City Council may uphold the applicant's appeal and vote in favor of the project. In order to approve the project, the following actions are required, and a majority of the Council members must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. a. Certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been completed finding that: 1. the document was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); 2. that the Final EIR was presented to Council (January 27, 2004); 3. that the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, including the Supplement Nos. 1 and 2 to the Response to Comments Document (January 27, 2004); and 4. that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. b. Make findings for the following discretionary actions pursuant to the zoning code (code criteria for these findings are attached at the end of the staff report): 1. Rezoning: of the following properties (see Attachment B, Exhibit III.A-1 for existing zoning) a. Rezoning from R-3 to C-1, Subarea B for existing City Lot "K" and a portion of the existing Safeway site; and b. Rezoning from C-1, Subarea A to C-1, Subarea B of the existing Wells Fargo site and existing City Lot "L" ; 2. Conditional Use Permits for Safeway: grocery store use in Subarea B, hours of operation outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (24-hour operation requested), 111 41GOhQliG bevera es for seating in deli, and take-out food service; Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue 3. Conditional Use Permit For Walgreens: hours of operation (24-hour operation requested); and 4. Variance: for parking space dimensions (113 spaces of the total 158 on-site spaces provided which are dimensioned at 9' x 19' where 9' x 20' is required for standard parking spaces. 2. City Council may deny the applicant's appeal and vote to deny the project. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. If the Council chooses to deny the project, there is no requirement to act on the Environmental Impact Report. However, if the Council determines that the information in the EIR is an adequate disclosure regarding CEQA issues and that it represents the independent judgment of the city, but also determines that the project is not in the best interest of the City, the Council may consider the following action as a single motion: a. Approve the Environmental Impact Report, noting that it is: • consistent with the requirements of CEQA; • was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; • that the Final EIR was presented to Council; • that the Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, including the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments Document, and Supplement Nos. 1 and 2 to the Response to Comments Document; and • that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment; and b. Deny the project based on the best interests of the community. 3. City Council may deny the project without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project, or if the Council is willing to consider the application again in the near future with only minor changes. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct where any subsequent hearing should be held either before the City Council or the Planning Commission. A denial without prejudice may include an action on the Final EIR, that action can be either approval of that document or certification. Affirmative action on the project will require that the Council act on the following at subsequent meetings: • Land Exchange: Exchange of public and private properties, including a determination regarding the acceptability of the reconfiguration of the public parking lots on the site; terms of exchange, acceptance of size (square footage), location, access and number of parking spaces in merged public parking lots; • Tentative Parcel Map(s): for consolidating existing parcels and establishing a new City-owned parcel from the two public parking parcels; includes dedications of right-of-way and easements for public access; and • Deeds: conveying and accepting ownership and establishing new City-owned parcel. -2- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue Planning Commission Action: On April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the revised Safeway project (plans of March 13, 2003) and its Environmental Impact Report. On May 1, 2003, the Planning Commission, on a 6-1 vote, denied the application for a new building and the Final EIR and Supplement No. 1 to the Response to Comments document prepared for the project. On May 5, 2003, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. (Refer to the attached Planning Commission Minutes for April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2003) BACKGROUND: Revised Project: In January, 2003, Safeway submitted a revised application(refer to Table 1 below which outlines the project and its differences from the original application). The Revised Project (plans date stamped March 13, 2003) consists of a proposal to demolish the existing Safeway, Wells Fargo and Walgreen's structures, combine the lots including City Parking Lot L, and build a new retail building for Safeway, Walgreen's and three retail shops at 1450 Howard Avenue. As a part of the project, Safeway is proposing that City parking lots K& L be combined and reconfigured at the northwestern portion of the site. (Refer to project plans date stamped March 13, 2003; also refer to the April 28, 2003 Planning Commission staff report for a complete project description) Table 1 —C-1 Zoning Property Development Standards and Parking Requirements ORIGINAL PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL July20,2001 March 13,2003 ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS: Front(Howard Avenue): 0'—4' 0'—7'(varies) None Side(El Camino Real) 160' 167' 20' Side(Primrose Road) 0' 0'—4'(varies) None LANDSCAPING: Landscaped Islands in Landscaping in Parking Lot, None Required Parking Lot;4'along along Howard&El Camino portions of Howard Avenue Real adjacent to parking lot; and inset areas along Howard&Primrose HEIGHT&BULK -Building Height 35'+/- Measured from Maximum of 35'at El 35'-0";buildings over 35' average top of curb along Camino Real frontage;21' require a conditional use Howard Avenue along Primrose permit Floor Area Ratio 0.46 FAR 0.45 FAR 3.0 FAR 69,747 SF 66,910 SF 450,159 SF PARKING Space Requirement—Zoning Code 160 spaces 155 spaces+3 truck loading 149 spaces(incl.4 spaces for spaces= 158 spaces deli seating 1:200) Space Requirement— 160 spaces 158 spaces 158- 170 spaces Parking District Parking Space Dimensions Standard(9'x 20)—8 Standard(9'x 20')—2 Standard— 116 *"Unistall" (9'x 19)— 111 *"Unistall"(9'x 19)— 113 Compact—29(20%) Compact—31 (20%) Compact(8'x 17)—34(5 Disabled Accessible—6 Disabled Accessible—6 extra compact are in excess Truck Parking Spaces—4 of code requirement-OK Disabled Accessible—6 Truck Parking Spaces—3 *Variance required for: 113 parking spaces dimensioned at 9'x 19'where 9'x 20'is the minimum dimension for standard spaces;Conditional Use Permits required for: grocery store use in Subarea B; hours of operation outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.;for sale of alcoholic beverages;for a food establishment(seating in deli area)and for take-out services. Rezoning required for two parcels now zoned R-3 to the C-1, Subarea B zoning district,and for two parcels now zoned C-1,Subarea A to the C-1,Subarea B zoning district. -3- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue SAFEWAY PROJECT SITE—EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDING AREAS July 20,2001 March 13,2003 Net Change Existing Proposal Net Change Proposal Net Change from 2001 STORE Buildin Area Building Area from Existing Building Area from Existing Proposal Safeway 31,754 49,791 +18,037 45,728 +13,974 -4,063 Wells Faro 7,721 500 -7,221 0 -7,721 -500 Walgreen's 15,704 16,600 +896 15,295 -409 -1,305 Retail Shops none 2,856 +2,856 5,887 +5,887 +3,031 Total 55,179 69,747 +14,568 66,910 +11,731 -2,837 ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project is composed of four documents. The Draft EIR(2/6/02), the Response to Comments document (5/23/02), Supplement No. 1 to the Response to Comments Document (4/14/03) and Supplement No. 2 to the Response to Comments Document (10/27/03) (refer to the attached City Council Staff Report for the Study Session held on January 27, 2004 for a complete discussion of the EIR document and its review process). Conclusions of the Final EIR document: Based on the analysis of the existing conditions and the projected increases in the identified areas, and based on the mitigation measures proposed by the Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments Document, and Supplement Nos. 1 and 2 to the Response to Comments Document, the Final EIR concludes that the potential environmental impacts could be reduced to an acceptable level. Table 2, Comparison of Key Parameters, Impacts, Mitigation Measures for the Original Project and the Revised Project, presents a description of the potential impacts and a comparison of the original and revised projects impacts. Because the identified effects could all be reduced to acceptable levels by identified mitigations, in certifying the EIR, the Council would not be required to make "Findings of Overriding Consideration". The conclusion of no adverse environmental impacts is based on the revised project including all the mitigation measures identified (see below for the list of mitigation measures). Changes to Mitigation Measures: The Council may,with adequate reasons related to the particular impact caused, change any of the required mitigations or determine that the mitigation is inadequate. If the project sponsor should (1) decline a mitigation, or (2) show convincingly that a mitigation is impossible; or(3) if the Council should determine that the mitigation is inadequate to reduce the identified impact to a level acceptable to the community, the City must find that the effect is a "significant unavoidable impact" and must make a "Finding of Overriding Consideration" in order to approve the project. Required Findings: The criteria for findings for Certification of the Final EIR, rezoning, variance for parking space dimension and for the requested conditional use permits are attached at the end of the staff report. Staff Comments: Staff would note that in Burlingame, the mitigation monitoring plan for a project requiring an EIR is implemented through the conditions of approval. Those conditions which are a part of the mitigation monitoring plan are shown in italics. These are the conditions which, if found to be inadequate or if the project sponsor says are impossible to complete, could cause the need to make findings of overriding consideration should the Council vote in the affirmative. -4- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue Conditions of Approval: At the public hearing the following conditions (mitigation measures and project- related conditions) should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 13, 2003, Sheets 1 through 16, Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Roof Plan, Building Sections, Grading and Utility Plan, Tentative Parcel Map, Landscape Plan, Site Electrical Plan, Site Photometric Plan, Construction Phasing Plans and Truck Route and Pedestrian Path Plan; and the drawing "City of Burlingame, Storm Drain Improvement, Safeway Property" dated March 11, 2002, and shall include no less than 5,887 SF of independent retail space in three store fronts accessed directly from the Primrose Road street frontage; 2. that the grocery store may operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, may include the sale of alcoholic beverages in compliance with ABC requirements, and there shall be no more than 36 employees on site at any one time; 3. that the drug store may operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and there shall be no more than 10 employees on site at any one time; 4. that the food establishment — seating area for the deli — shall be limited to a maximum of 660 SF of floor area within the building, and to 500 SF of outdoor seating on-site immediately adjacent to the front entrance, as shown on Sheet 2 date stamped March 13, 2003; there shall be no increase in indoor or outdoor seating area without City approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit; 5. that in addition to grocery sales, the grocery store use may include a florist, a photo center, a bakery, and a delicatessen; there shall be no bank without an amendment to this conditional use permit; 6. that there shall be no drive-in pharmacy or any other type of drive-in or drive-thru service as a part of the drug store, grocery store or independent retail stores on this site; 7. that deliveries by Safeway trucks shall be limited to the hours between 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m.; 8. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require City approval of an amendment to this use permit; 9. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; Public Works Engineering: 10. that the applicant shall dedicate a permanent storm drain easement to the City for maintenance and access of a new storm drain as shown on the drawing "City of Burlingame, Storm Drain Improvement, Safeway Property" dated March 11, 2002; Safeway shall construct the new storm drain, manhole access and the junction structure within the easement during or before the construction of the Safeway project; the City will reimburse Safeway for the construction costs up to $ 163,000; -5- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue 11. that the existing sanitary sewer shall be analyzed by a qualified professional retained and paid by the applicant to determine its capacity and structural integrity to accommodate the added flows from the proposed project as compared to existing conditions; at a minimum, the sanitary sewer analysis shall include televising the sewer line and monitoring the flow in the sewer system at the following sites: a. Sewer line and manholes at Primrose Road at the project frontage; and b. Sewer line and manholes at Howard Ave between El Camino Real and Primrose Road; if the sewer system is found to be deficient in capacity by the City, the applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the sewer system along the frontages of the project site to accommodate the demand generated by the project; the sewer system analysis and any required improvements shall be submitted to the Engineering Division and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit; 12. that the project applicant shall enter into a Public Improvement Agreement with the City to design and construct public improvements required below; the Public Improvement Agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; the applicant shall submit a bond to the City Engineer equal to the construction cost of such public improvements prior to the issuance of a demolition permit; any portion of the work within public right-of-way shall require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencement; all construction work in public rights-of-way and easements and on public property shall be paid at prevailing wage rates as established pursuant to Labor Code sections 1770 and following: a. that in order to determine the pavement design requirements for public streets affected by the project, the applicant shall determine the traffic index and prepare a soils report establishing soil strength for El Camino Real, Howard Avenue, Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane; the street reconstruction including AC pavement and Class II base shall be designed based on the traffic index, soils report and the City's pavement management program; plans for street reconstruction shall be submitted to the Engineering Division and approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit and inspected by the City prior to scheduling the final building inspection; b. that the applicant shall, at its sole cost, design and construct improvements in the proposed City parking lot and shared access easements used by truck traffic as approved by the City Engineer; the construction shall be completed and accepted by the City as part of Phase I of the project as shown on the applicant's plans including but not limited to AC pavement, Class II base, grading, drainage features, landscaping, irrigation, lighting, parking meters, signing and striping; paving in all areas used for truck access/egress shall be additionally designed based on soil conditions and predicted usage to bear the weight of large trucks, as approved by the City Engineer prior to construction; C. that the applicant shall submit a detailed traffic signal plan and signing and striping plan for the Howard/El Camino Real and Howard/Primrose Road intersections; plans shall include installation of audible pedestrian signal devices and signal interconnect; the traffic signal plan shall be submitted as part of the building plan check application and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permit; -6- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue d. that the applicant shall submit a signal interconnect plan and signal timing plan including phone line connection to the City Hall computer system for real time monitoring which will connect the traffic signals on Howard Avenue at El Camino Real, Primrose Road and Park Road; the traffic data regarding levels of service, vehicle delay and queue length at El Camino Real/Ralston, El Camino Real/Howard, Primrose/Howard, and Primrose/Fox Plaza Lane under existing conditions and project conditions shall be provided to the City Engineer to determine proper signal coordination; the signal interconnect plan and signal timing plan shall be submitted as part of the building plan check application and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit; e. that the applicant shall, at its sole cost, design and construct public improvements on all project frontages including, but not limited to, streetscape improvements, new asphalt pavement, striping, signage and parking meters on frontage streets including Fox Plaza Lane, sidewalk, curb, gutter, drainage features, street lighting, trash receptacles, tree planting, landscaping, irrigation, traffic signals and interconnect systems; the improvements shall be compliant with the streetscape standards as approved by the City Engineer; the sidewalk on Fox Plaza Lane shall use the streetscape standard integral sidewalk color; plans for street and public right-of- way improvements shall be submitted as a part of the building plan check application and approved prior to issuance of any building permits; f. that based on past practice, no public street and sidewalk improvements along Primrose and Howard shall be done during the holiday season between Thanksgiving and the end of the year; 13. that in order to address the significantly reduced parking supply at the project site and at the adjacent City lots during construction phasing, the following conditions shall be met: a. prior to the issuance of encroachment permit for construction of the new City lot, based on past practice, the applicant shall pay the City for the loss of parking meter revenue for each month or portion thereof of construction of Phase One at the rate of$3,413.00 per month; b. to address the impact on delivery truck and vehicle access to businesses on Burlingame Avenue during the construction, the applicant shall develop a plan, working with affected property owners and building tenants backing onto Fox Plaza Lane, to provide alternate delivery, loading/unloading, and vehicle access during construction; the plan shall address such factors as uninterrupted delivery access, pedestrian access, employee access and emergency access; the applicant shall provide the City with written verification that the property owners have been notified of the plan and demonstrate their input into preparation of the plan; the plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshall prior to issuance of building permits; C. the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit; the construction staging plan shall include all construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas at any time; -7- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue 14. that a construction traffic management plan shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to the issuance of a demolition permit which addresses: (1) construction vehicle and delivery routes to and from the project site, including streets providing the safest access and having the least impact on existing traffic, and (2) additional traffic control such as signals, warning signs or flaggers to facilitate vehicular and pedestrian movement during construction activities; 15. that based on past practice, the applicant shall assign an on-site contact person to respond to public concerns resulting from construction activities; the name and phone number of the contact person shall be posted on the site and provided to the City Engineer; the applicant shall provide a monthly construction status report to property owners,businesses and residents affected by the construction; 16. that in order for the proposed City parking lot to function with adequate aisle width, the applicant shall dedicate an access easement at all entry and exit points to the project including property at the El Camino Real driveway, at Howard Avenue driveway, and along the drive aisle which is shared by the proposed City lot and the Safeway lot; this drive aisle easement shall provide a minimum 24-foot wide aisle and shall be designed to support heavy truck traffic; the easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permit; 17. that the applicant shall dedicate the right of way to the City for the widened Fox Plaza Lane and Primrose Road prior to the issuance of any building permits; Safeway shall be responsible for the maintenance and repairs for the portion of Fox Plaza Lane between Primrose Road and the newly configured City Parking Lot; 18. that the applicant shall submit a project grading and drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval; the drainage catch basins shall be equipped with petroleum absorbent filters to prevent storm water pollution; the applicant shall submit a maintenance and inspection plan for the petroleum absorbent filters; the grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as a part of the grading permit application and shall be approved prior to issuance of any building permit; 19. that the applicant shall submit a storm water pollution prevention plan for project construction for approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any demolition permit; 20. that the parcel map including all easements and dedications shall be recorded prior to issuance of any demolition permit; 21. that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) shall review and approve all project improvements within the El Camino Real public right-of-way; this includes obtaining encroachment permit(s), right of entry documents, a letter of Caltrans approval to the city and the project developer, and any other necessary Caltrans requirements; Caltrans written approval shall be obtained before issuing a building permit for construction; Fire Marshal: 22. that the building shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system; 23. that separate control valves for the sprinkler system shall be provided for each tenant; 24. that the location of the Fire Department connections shall be identified on post indicator valves; -8- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue 25. that a complete manual fire alarm system shall be provided; 26. that the above four items (Conditions 21-24) are to be monitored by an approved central station; 27. that all lanes and Fox Plaza Lane shall comply with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 17.04 for fire lane identification and addressing; 28. that this project requires one on-site fire hydrant to be placed at a location approved by the Fire Chief, 29. that a building over 52,000 SF requires two separate risers; please locate fire department connections and indicate closest hydrants to each; Recycling Specialist: 30. that the applicant shall submit to the City a recycling plan for the entire project to be approved prior to demolition, and a site inspection shall be required prior to each new phase of construction; 31. that a recycling deposit and compliance report shall be required for each phase of the project; Parks Department: 32. that other than the trees on El Camino Real, each tree to be removed shall be replaced with a 24-inch box size tree; 33. that per horticulturist analysis by Barrie Coate dated June 3, 1996, no construction grading greater than 6 inches of depth is to be done within 30 feet of any Eucalyptus tree on the El Camino Real frontage without specific inspection and approval of Caltrans prior to start of grading; 34. that complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit submittal and shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of any building permit; 35. that a 90-day contractor maintenance period shall be required for all landscaping and irrigation; 36. that a one-year maintenance bond shall be required which includes replacement of trees; Conditions which constitute the Mitigation Monitoring Plana: 37. that in order to accommodate heavy truck traffic on Fox Plaza Lane and through the public parking lot, the applicant shall design the pavement in these areas to a standard that would accommodate that heavier traffic; (traffic, circulation and parking; Public Works, Engineering) (See Public Works Condition No. 12.a.) a Listed below in italics are the mitigations measures taken from the Draft EIR and Supplement Nos. 1 and 2 to the Response to Comments document. There is a notation after each mitigation measure which references the impact being mitigated and the City Department(s)responsible for monitoring its implementation. Some of the requirements listed below are also covered by conditions imposed by other Departments listed above,and others are addressed by revisions made to the project. Staff has included notations after these mitigation measures to indicate where they are cross-referenced in other conditions or on the plans. -9- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue 38. that the applicant shall provide a parking facility to accommodate 35 parking spaces, four of which would replace the required spaces not provided in the reconfigured public parking lot (Lots K and L); these four spaces shall be available for general public use; if the parking facility would be for the use of Safeway/Walgreen's employees and customers only, then 50% of the spaces shall be located within 300 feet of the project site; if the facility would be available for public parking, then the facility shall be located within 600 feet of the project site; alternatively, the applicant shall pay the City the amount of the cost to obtain and construct a public parking facility for 35 parking spaces within 600 feet of the project site; the amount shall be determined by a City appraisal of a selected site, and the cost of construction shall be determined by an appropriately licensed third party selected by the City; the City would construct the facility within three years of the issuance of the initial building permit for the project. To ensure that the availability of the new parking facility would coincide with the increase in parking demand generated by the project, the applicant shall notify the City before any demolition or buildingpermits shall be issued of which of the alternative options described above it has chosen; if the City is to acquire the land and build the parking facility, then the project sponsor shall provide a cash deposit or letter of credit in the amount of the estimated costs to the City prior to issuance of a building permit; if the applicant chooses to build the parking facility, then the lot shall be available for use within three months of the project sponsor's request for final inspection by the City; (traffic, circulation and parking; City Manager, Public Works, Engineering) 39. that prior to construction activity, the applicant shall submit a construction management plan for review and approval by the City's Department of Public Works; this plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following items: (See also Public Works Department Condition Nos. 13 through 15) a. identification of routes for the movement of construction vehicles that would minimize the impacts on vehicular traffic circulation in the area; b. provision of traffic control personnel to direct both general public and construction vehicles; C. staging of the movements of construction materials and equipment so as not to hinder the general flow of traffic in the immediate vicinity of the project site; d. identification of areas required for encroachment within the public right-of-way; e. a balance of accommodation of the maximum on-site parking spaces and of on-site placement of construction equipment and construction vehicles; f. provision of off-street parking for all construction workers' vehicles (which could entail reaching agreement to use parking spaces on off-site properties, such as churches, not in use by others during construction hours); g. designation of an on-site construction inspector; h. designation of an on-site construction manager to respond to and track complaints; and -10- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue i. posting of signs at the construction site that include permitted construction days and hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number for the City of Burlingame in the event of problems; (traffic, circulation and parking; Public Works, Engineering) 40. that with the exception of refrigeration trucks, all trucks at the site shall shut off their engines in the loading bays when not in use; idling in the loading bay or at other areas of the site shall be minimized to the extent feasible; (noise; Planning Department) 41. the applicant shall add landscaping to strengthen the on-site landscape treatment near the El Camino Real and Howard Avenue intersection; (visual quality; Planning Department) (See landscape plan, sheet 12, date stamped March 13, 2003.for landscape treatment in and adjacent to parking lot) 42. that the applicant shall incorporate additional retail entrances along Howard Avenue and/or along Primrose near Fox Plaza Lane; (visual quality; Planning Department) (See site plan,floor plan and elevations, sheets 1, 2, 4 & 5, date stamped March 13, 2003,for retail entrances on Howard and Primrose) 43. that any glazed facade displays shall include human scale elements designed to engage pedestrian interest; these displays shall be changed frequently (about once per month) in order to contribute sustained visual and streetscape vitality; (visual quality; Planning department) (The site plan and elevations, sheets 1, 4 & 5, date stamped March 13, 2003, include real windows into the storefronts along Primrose and into the Safeway store on Howard Avenue, which provide a human scale element to engage pedestrian interest) 44. that non-glare fixtures shall be used for all exterior lighting; (light and glare; Building Department) 45. that the proposed project lighting shall be designed to avoid casting glare on off-site receptors including public streets and sidewalks, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.210; (light and glare; Building Department) 46. that all interior fluorescent fixtures shall be shielded to focus light downward and not outside the store; (light and glare; Building Department) 47. that a qualified archaeologist shall be on-site during earth moving activities (i.e., grading, excavating, asphalt removal, and trenching) in areas where archaeological deposits are suspected; (cultural resources; Planning Department) 48. that if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery shall be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find;prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implements such as slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles; and locally darkened midden soils containing some of the previously listed items plus fragments of shell, bone and fire affected (burned or fractured) stones; historic period site indicators generally include: fragments of glass, ceramic, and metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and feature remains such as building foundations, privies, wells and dumps; accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; (cultural resources; Planning Department) -11- Appeal of the Planning Commission's Action on the Safeway Project 1450 Howard Avenue 49. that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office shall be notified immediately; the coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission; the Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains; the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the applicant and the most likely descendant; accidental discover of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; (cultural resources; Planning Department) 50. that the applicant shall be required to meet the replanting conditions contained in the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Ordinance (Code Section 11.06.090b); (tree resources; Parks Department) (See Condition No. 32, Parks Department) 51. that the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for any tree removal in Caltrans right-of way along El Camino Real; each tree shall be replaced with two 24"box size trees of a species and in a location designated by Caltrans; (tree resources; Parks Department) 52. that, if required by the City Arborist, the applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for removal of the Coast Live Oak tree from the City of Burlingame prior to issuance of a building permit for the project; the applicant shall be required to meet the replanting conditions contained in the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Ordinance (Code Section 11.06.090b); (tree resources; Parks Department) and 53. that the applicant shall be required to obtain any necessary tree removal permits for the other protected trees on the site prior to issuance of a building permit for the project; the applicant shall be required to meet the replanting conditions contained in the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Ordinance (Code Section 11.06.090b). (tree resources; Parks Department) ATTACHMENTS: Criteria for Findings Appeal of Planning Commission's decision dated May 5, 2003 Public Notice Council Staff Report for January 27, 2004 Study Session on the EIR prepared for the project Planning Commission Minutes of April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 2003 Planning Commission Minutes of December 8, 2003 Draft EIR for Burlingame Safeway dated February 6, 2002 Response to Comments Document dated May 23, 2002 Supplement No. 1 to the Response to Comments Document dated April 14, 2003 Supplement No. 2 to the Response to Comments Document dated October 27, 2003 Public Comments received after Planning Commission hearing Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 28, 2003 Applicant Submittal Attachments Public Comments Conceptual Plans date stamped March 13, 2003 -12- l \ 7 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes December 16, 2003 I. Call to Order President Catherine McCormack called the meeting to order at 4:45pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Dave Carr, Cecile Coar, Mary Herman, Catherine McCormack, Carol Rossi Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder Guest: Terry Nagel, New City Council Member III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants. M/S/C (Carr/Herman) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the November 18, 2003 meeting as amended. M/S/C (Coar/Herman) V. Correspondence and Attachments A. Monthly Statistics - Circulation figures increased 30% for November. The City Librarian stated that a portion of this figure could be attributed to San Mateo's location of its temporary quarters but noted that many public libraries are showing an increase in circulation. B. Legislative Report - PLF and TBR have not been targeted for mid-year cuts by the State. C. Burlingame Community for Education - BCE sent a letter to the City Librarian requesting donations to their auction to be held at the annual fundraiser March 13, 2004. A few years ago the Library donated private story times to certain elementary schools. The Trustees requested that this matter be placed on the agenda for the January 20, 2004 meeting. 480 Primrose-Road•Burlingame•CA 94010-4083 Phone (650) 558-7474'Fax(650) 342-6295 VI. From The Floor - Council member Terry Nagel thanked the City Librarian and the Trustees for giving her an orientation of the library and providing her with the opportunity to meet with some of the Library staff. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1. Budget a. Library Budget - Reductions ranging from 5%, 10% and 15% have been submitted to the City Manager. The reductions of all departments will be discussed by the department managers and then brought to City Council. b. Recommended Cuts - Library department managers suggested that some of the first round cuts include reduction in the book budget, close Friday night and Sunday afternoon. Sunday is an expensive day as the Library is staffed for the most part by hourly employees. In order to keep Sundays open and still save $50,000 a year, full time and permanent part time staff would have to work one or two Sundays a month. This procedure would require negotiations with the union, as it would be changing the workweek for employees in these classifications. C. Goals Session - January 24, 2004 is the date for the first Goals session with City department managers and the City Council. The meeting is open to the public. The Council may invite the public to speak but they are not required to do so. 2. Friends of the Burlingame Library - Shirley Robertson, Jackie Gray and Joan Giampaoli were honored at the event for their 30 years of service, along with Jean Ratel and Ray Schandall who were unable to attend. Shirley Robertson gave the Library a check for $27,000 to help fund programs and services. The Friends have officially disbanded their operations and will now work under the auspices of the Burlingame Library Foundation. B. Foundation Report - Carol Rossi 1. Newsletter - The Newsletter was mailed the first week of December. 2. Employee Appreciation Dinner - The annual event was a great success and everyone had a very good time. The Doubletree has been booked for the event in 2004. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 December 16,2003 3. Elections - Interviews are in progress for new board 0- board members this month. The official vote of officers for the coming year will take place at the January 8, 2004 meeting. VIII. Unfinished Business - A. Easton Project Status - An asbestos inspection and removal is in progress. The Easton committee has selected furniture. B. Employee Achievement Awards - Pat Harding, Eric Hannan and Ray De Lara were the recipients of the Employee Achievement Awards for 2003. C. Budget 2004 - 2005 - Discussed under City Librarian's Report. IX. New Business A. Duncan Trust Request - The Trustees approved the City Librarian's letter to the Peninsula Community Foundation requesting disbursement of funds previously allocated to the Easton project. M/S/C Rossi/Carr X. Announcements XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:20pm. The next meeting of the Library Trustees will be held January 20, 2004 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room. M/S/C Rossi/Carr Respectfully Submitted, H. / 4�L� Alfred Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 December 16, 2003 N The City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.budingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, January 8, 2004 Commissioners Present: Russ Cohen, Chair Stephen Warden,Vice Chair Jim McIver Lisa De Angelis Commissioners Absent: David Mayer Staff Present: Sgt. Dawn Cutler, Police Department Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Staff Absent: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Visitors: Joe McVeigh, 329 Occidental Avenue, Burlingame Julia McVeigh, 329 Occidental Avenue, Burlingame Frank Kelly, 321 Occidental Avenue, Burlingame Fred Klein, 23 Dwight Road, Burlingame Pauly Grange, 21 Dwight Road, Burlingame Randy Grange, 21 Dwight Road, Burlingame John Adams, 16 Dwight Road, Burlingame Johnney Chen, 20 Dwight Road, Burlingame Emily Nolan, 12 Dwight Road, Burlingame Jack Nolan, 12 Dwight Road,Burlingame Anna Nolan, 12 Dwight Road,Burlingame Hamid Bean, 889 California Drive, Burlingame Sharon Bean, 889 California Drive, Burlingame Gary Stevens, 29 Dwight Road, Burlingame Teresa Colone, 30 Dwight Road, Burlingame Robert Beaudreau, 333 Occidental, Burlingame Margie Blunt, 1538 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame Elizabeth Yost, 344 Occidental, Burlingame Alan Klein, 325 Occidental,Burlingame Kathy Furr, 38 Dwight Road, Burlingame Alex Furr, 38 Dwight Road, Burlingame Nick Furr, 38 Dwight Road, Burlingame Lynn Feeney, 15 Dwight Road, Burlingame Morgan Feeney, 15 Dwight Road, Burlingame Terry Nagel, 2337 Poppy Drive, Burlingame TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, January 8, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1 ACTION ITEMS. 4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for December 11, 2003 Vice Chair Warden requested a correction in the voice vote counts to reflect ayes, noes as well as absences. It was moved and seconded(Comms.McIver/Warden)to approve the amended minutes, approved by voice vote,4-0-1 (Comm. Mayer absent). 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.2.1 On-street parking study for 800 block of California Drive Comms. Warden and De Angelis will set up a meeting with the businesses of this area and report back next month. Sgt. Cutler stated that she and the Code Enforcement Officer met with the owner who has been parking a multitude of cars with For Sale signs and suggested that he find an off-site location since it appears his business has outgrown this site. Such a move will free up a lot of spaces. This will be a Discussion Item next month. 4.2.2 Request for 1-hour parking limit at 827 California Drive Chair Cohen stated that the applicant has been waiting since July for action since this has been linked to Item 4.2.1. Comm. De Angelis stated that staff is also looking at the status of the red zone and bus stop at this location. It was moved and seconded(Comms. Warden/McIver)to make this an Action Item next month, approved by voice vote,4-0-1 (Comm. Mayer absent). 4.2.3 Request removal of 2-hour parking limit on Occidental Avenue From the floor, Mr. Kelly requested the signs be removed on the west side unless they leave the signs but not enforce them. Two hour parking at the church is appropriate. If no cars park on the street, it appears wider which encourages speeders.Mr.Klein requested the signs be removed. Ms. Blunt requested the signs be removed and that special parking permits be issued to residents if the signs remain. She requested notices be sent again for next month's meeting because the last notice arrived late. Ms. Yost requested the signs remain due to the church day care, church events, and shoppers parking on Friday and Saturday nights. Mr. McVeigh requested the signs remain and special parking permits be issued to residents. Mr. Beaudreau requested speed limit signs be installed. The City of Burlingame Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, January 8, 2004 Sgt. Cutler advised that staff costs are a major reason for not issuing permits and that such a program would be citywide,not street by street. Chair Cohen stated that noticing the neighborhood is necessary since this would be a major change and volunteered to go door-to-door to obtain resident input before next month's meeting. 4.2.4 Requests to review Dwight Road for speeding problems From the floor, Mr. Grange stated that staff had agreed to install a solid yellow line for 200 yards from Peninsula Avenue and that the traffic signal at Peninsula Avenue would be replaced with an actuated signal with City of San Mateo's involvement since they jointly own this intersection; however, City funds are no longer available. Mr. Stevens measured speeds which is generally at 30 mph but there are 5-10 drivers on average who speed down this street. He presented a handout on 3-inch speed cushions which cost about $3,000 and are apparently acceptable for emergency vehicles to traverse. Ms. Nolan stated that speeds reach 45-50 mph down this street. She made several suggestions: Children at Play and speed limit signage be installed; this block be made one way, northbound; installing a 4-way stop sign at the Peninsula Avenue intersection; no left turns between 7 & 9 a.m. and 3 & 7 p.m. Sgt. Cutler stated that in the past 12 months, five accidents were recorded; but none were speed related and only two occurred mid-block. Of the two recorded mid-block accidents, one involved a child running into the street and the other involved a driver unsafely passing a garbage truck. Comm. De Angelis suggested reviewing the previous minutes on the bulbout request to verify what the City agreed to do. For the short term, Chair Cohen recommended installing a centerline; performing another traffic count to pinpoint when speeders need to be monitored by police and what effect the bulbouts have had;and recommended that staff check on the status of funding availability for the actuated signal. This will be a Discussion Item next month. 4.2.5 Request for height limit signs for Rollins Road at Marsten Road Chair Cohen stated that staff had suggested only posting the intersection areas with height limit signs since trucks need other places to park. Comm. De Angelis stated that the area should be looked at as a whole to keep posting uniform. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. None. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. None. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS. 7.1 From Staff to Commission 7.1.1 Traffic Engineer's Report Chair Cohen stated that per staff, the project to install the No Left Turn signage on Bellevue Avenue at El Camino Real will follow Hillsborough's project on their intersection of Floribunda The City of Burlingame Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, January 8, 2004 Avenue and El Camino Real. Chair Cohen reported that the hearing to install a Stop sign on Humboldt Road at Howard Avenue will be held at the January 201h Council meeting, and residents should advise Council before or during the hearing of their position. 7.1.1.1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame. Chair Cohen stated that there are three candidates for the vacant seat on this commission, and the chosen candidate might be assigned to this committee. 7.2 From Commission to Staff 7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Comm. McIver stated that he was pleased to announce that he had received several verbal commendations on Parking Enforcement Officer Julie Davis. 7.2.2 Comments and Communication Comm.De Angelis provided staff with an attorney newsletter which included an article on vehicle For Sale signs which states that it is illegal for cities to enforce the sale of vehicles on the street. Comm. McIver will find out more information for the next meeting on the "curbing" of vehicles which is when cars are sold by an agent for the owners. 7.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, February 12, 2004 meeting Chair Cohen will be on vacation. Sgt. Cutler will also be on vacation, so Officer Witt will attend the February meeting. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS. None. 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 4.2.1 to Discussion 4.2.2 to Action 4.2.3 to Discussion 4.2.4 to Discussion 4.2.5 to Discussion 10. ADJOURNMENT. 8:20 p.m. The City of Burlingame Page 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California January 26, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Boju6s called the January 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling ; C. Vistica arrived at 7:32 p.m. Absent: Commissioners: Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney,Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Phil Monaghan III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 12, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were reviewed and two amendments requested. First that Item 2,page 2 lines 16 to 18: should read"Concerned that with 30%lot coverage will cause all houses adjacent on the emerged lots to look the same,how will we insure variation among the new houses, would prefer a sliding scale so that one is 100%of the permitted FAR,the second 89°0 90%permitted FAR and third 7-5-OA 80% of the permitted FAR", commissioner also asked for a variety of revisions to Item 8, pages 8 — 11. Because these changes were throughout the section the revisions will be attached to the minutes of the January 26, 2004, meeting for Commission action. At that time the action would be to correct the minutes of the January 12,2004,meeting. With this direction the commission approved the January 12, 2004,meeting minutes including the correction to Item 2 and deferring approval of the corrections to item 8 until the commission's next meeting,February 9, 2004. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B—APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE (GRAM REALTY, INC., APPLICANT; S.J. SUNG & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT;CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD.,PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN Plnr.Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Staff noted that applicant will only be using 7,464 SF of the 13,995 SF tenant space, remaining 6,531 SF will be subleased to another tenant, who has not been identified at this time. A separate conditional use permit will be required if the future tenant is a real estate or financial institution. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 Commissioners asked: • Hours of operation during the week are listed as 9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,but state agents maybe using office after hours,proposed hours of operation should reflect full extent of use; • 64 agents plus 5 full-time employees is 69 employees total,at 1 parking space per 300 SF this entire tenant space is allocated 47 spaces,but this tenant would occupy 60%of the space and with a few customers on-site and 45-43 agents the entire allocation of parking for this suite would be used up, how will parking be provided for other sub-leaser in this suite; • Are the agents independent contractors that lease space or do they work for the applicant;how many hours are they on-site;how many realtors are full time and how many are part time;how many hours a week do they work, is this main source of employment for these contractors or do they do real estate in addition to other employment; • With number of people listed on application there would be 1 person per 100 SF,would need three times the required parking as required by code not including the sub-leased space; • How often do clients come to the site, and how many are expected at one time; • Will agents meet clients at this site and carpool to look at properties; and • What time of day do clients come to the site. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on --� simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 2A. 147 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROCQUE YBALLA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; SANDRA JIMINEZ,DESIGNER)(30 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2B. 1235 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT (GYMBOREE CORPORATION, THOMAS DULICK,GYMBOREE CORPORATION,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;KIRKBRIDE C/O HENRY HORN&SONS,PROPERTY OWNERS) 31 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:CATHERINE BARBER Chair Boju6s asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Regarding 147 Loma Vista Drive, a Commissioner noted that the applicant is required to plant trees it the public right-of-way behind the property, and asked CA Anderson if these trees are required to be removed at any time in the future will the applicant be required to pay for the removal? CA Anderson replied that it depends on the reason for the removal,would have to pay if the removal were the result of an action by the property owner. Commissioner recently drove down Skyline and noted that the proposed landscaping in the park easement will be a valuable addition to Skyline Boulevard. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26,2004 comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair called for voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Cers. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Item concluded at 7:15 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1605 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GAIRD SCHLESINGER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; WILLIAMSON CHAVEZ DESIGN,DESIGNER)(70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Gaird Schlesinger,property owner,was available to answer any question. Lori Zimmerman, 1614 Forestview Avenue, lives behind subject property. Concerned with application because of construction hours. Submitted letter to Planning Commission that details construction hours agreement reached with applicant. He agreed to limit construction to 7:00 a.m.to 3:30 p.m. during the week, with some work going until 5:30 p.m.. Support project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: nice job on design,will blend in nicely with the neighborhood, good example of design in the City; addressed concerns from the last meeting; thanks for talking with the neighbor. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 20, 2004, sheets S 1, S2 and Al through A4, site plan, floor plans,building elevations and landscape plan; 2) that in addition to the limitations imposed by the City's regulations regarding construction hours, the applicant has made an agreement with the neighbor that construction on weekends will be limited to interior work,and construction on weekdays will cease no later than 5:30 p.m.; 3)that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4)that the conditions of the City Engineer's,Chief Building Official's,Recycling Specialist's and Fire Marshal's dated August 25, 2003 shall be met; 5)that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, and set the building envelope; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height;7) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 8) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff shall inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 9)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 12)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers.Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:21 p.m. 4e 1449 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK ROBERSTON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;CON BROSNAN,PROPERTY OWNER)(70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. Plnr. Barber presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Cers. Brownrigg noted he was absent at study meeting, wishes to abstain on this item. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson,project designer,918 E.Grant Place,San Mateo, took ideas from action meeting,changed rear design,added single story element,changed finish from stucco to lap siding. Commissioner noted that at the last meeting applicant was asked to reduce FAR by 10%,not just change architectural elements,although concern was also expressed about the mass. Have been through this design review process two times for this project, floor area was reduced on first round; when bought calculated on using standard code allowable FAR, at the last meeting some Commissioners thought FAR was o.k., so thought 10%reduction was a suggestion. This is a basic five bedroom five bathroom house, hard to reduce,but changed stucco to siding to reduce the mass and not have so much stucco. Commission asked applicant to explain what else was done to reduce the mass. Applicant noted that first floor element was added on the north and south elevations where the original plan had two-story element on the north and south elevations, stepped back the sides of the house. Commission commented that every bedroom has a bathroom and that the square footage has only been reduced by 40 SF,but that the mass and bulk has been broken up. The back of the house was re-designed and resulted in a 40 SF reduction. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Cers. Vistica arrived 7:32 p.m. Commission discussion: Sheet 5.1 shows the proposed ridge height in relation to the two adjacent houses, appears to fit in with the neighborhood,would like to see this type of drawing on all plans;project has been redesigned to break up large flat surface,rear has a lot of interest;why are there 5 bedroom and 5 bathrooms, not necessary,has been designed from inside out instead of working from the outside;applicant has come a long way, design review process works,would still like to see 10%reduction,but they have articulated the mass;landscape plan lacks large scale materials,front yard two trees are proposed,but Japanese Maple next to driveway will be small for a while,need larger tree like Evergreen Pear,would fit better with larger tree, would suggest a second in the front yard; in the back there is a Strawberry Tree proposed,but it is really a shrub,backyard screening is light,house is large need to see larger plant material;stated at last meeting FAR was not an issues, applicant has addressed design issues by using clap board siding and stone,better than stucco, single story element adds articulation,there are plenty of applications with floor area that is not 10% below the maximum that are approved that don't look massive and bulky,applicant has addressed concerns 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 with changes;nice front porch,there is a two car garage that is over 400 SF,so the usable floor area is 2,760 SF,size has been reduced,o.k.with project;tough one,bothered by size and floor area,almost at maximum allowable size despite concerns raise at last meeting,close to infringing on design review criteria to be too big for the neighborhood, need to bring FAR limit to City Council's attention for discussion; can see justification for height exception,sloping lot and from rear height is 25',blends with houses on either side, superficial response to comments;concerns with bulk and mass addressed,two-story walls around most of house except at rear where single story element introduced. C.Visticia moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 9,2004, Sheets 1 thru 6, site plan,floor plans,roof plan and building elevations;with a maximum floor area ratio of 3,301 SF; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 4) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's,Recycling Specialist's,Fire Marshal's,City Arborist's and the City Engineer's September 15, 2003 memos shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;7)that prior `- to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Discussion on the motion: like clap board siding, still large mass,but made good changes; design review process works. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (Cers. Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 1129 CLOVELLY LANE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION(JERRY DEAL,JD&ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFF AND DIANE FELTMAN,PROPERTY OWNERS)(74 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report January 26, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Diane Feltman,property owner, 1129 Clovelly Lane, stated that they have tried to maximize their existing space instead of adding on the back, though it would be a less intrusive addition and would match the existing house at the front. Commission asked the applicant what is the hardship for the front setback variance? Jerry Deal,JD&Associates, 1228 Paloma,explained that the existing house was built many years ago,with this floor plan it is very hard to put an addition on the back because of the location of the dining room and the kitchen,would be a large project to remove and relocate these rooms to add a family room at the rear,project is matching existing 17' setback,don't need a variance without the porch,but porch is a nice design element,want to keep porch. Commission asked if applicant looked at option to add where the deck is located at rear or considered a second story addition. Jerry Deal noted that there were no drawings done for addition at deck, but yes explored rear option, owner is not interested in second story addition. Commission noted that if 18"is removed off of front then the variance goes away,won't impact the design,there is no hardship other than re-doing drawings. Diane Feltman and Jerry Deal responded that they thought the roofline would look better without cutting back 18", architecturally it is the best solution to keep the porch as designed without 18"cut back. Commission asked if the hardship had to do the with current construction and design of the present home, are you trying to retain that with the current design. Jerry Deal replied that is the exact intent of this project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Keele moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: l)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 10, 2003, sheets 1-5, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2)that the front setback variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; that the intrusion into the front setback shall only be retained as a front porch and shall be enclosed; 3)that protective fencing,based on a licensed arborist's written recommendations as approved by the City Arborist, shall be installed around the existing 18-inch diameter tree in the front yard prior to any demolition,material/equipment staging on site and issuance of a building permit,and shall be maintained at the required location until the final inspection has been completed; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's December 15, 2003 memo shall be met; 5)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;6)that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Discussion on the motion: Six years ago there was a similar approval on a porch,porch is much less impact than a wall, proposal will keep integrity of the design; can not support the motion, there are other architectural solutions to keep architecture of the house;there is no exceptional hardship with this proposal, can't support;proposal is not making the variance worse,is not exacerbating the variance,expansion is not bringing the building any closer to property line than it already is, it is also a porch which is open, not a closed wall,better than extending into the back yard. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with the conditions as amended. Thk motion passed on a 5-2-0(Cers.Keighran and Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 6. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN-PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON DRAFT BAYFRONT PLAN AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. (201 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report 1/26/04,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed the reasons for the update of the plan,and gave a brief summary of its purpose and contents. Commissioners asked if there were changes to make to the plan,such as increases in density,does the environmental document need to be revised. SP Brooks noted that based on the direction given by the Commission, the analysis for traffic circulation assumed a maximum of 800 dwelling units for residential development,and if the density were increased, that portion of the analysis would have to be revised. The impact on the environmental report would have to be decided when the effects were determined. Commissioners asked staff to explain the future projects proposed for U.S. 101, specifically the Broadway and Peninsula interchanges. CP Monroe noted that while the auxiliary lane project is proceeding using allocated state and current Measure A funds, the proposal to reconstruct the Broadway interchange as an urban interchange would not be funded unless Measure A is extended. At that point, the Broadway interchange would be a high priority project, but it could be about ten years before it would be rebuilt. The Peninsula Interchange bridge will be widened as a part of the auxiliary lane project, and will be two lanes in each direction over the freeway with bike lanes, and improved on-and off-ramps. However,it will not be a full interchange,it will have northbound on and off-ramps only,with no freeway access in the southbound direction. An upgrade to Peninsula Interchange so it serves both north and southbound traffic is on the list for funding with an extension of Measure A. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Dan Anderson,728 Vernon Way,Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Charmaine Curtis,AF Evans Development;Mark Hudak,216 Park Road,Bob Lanzone,939 Laurel Street, San Carlos;Scott Kirkman,USL Properties,representing New Town Hotel Inc.,Russ Cohen,605 Lexington �- Way;and Paul Leininger,405 Chapin;made the following comments regarding the Bayfront Specific Plan: Think housing in the Bayfront area is a bad idea, it would be a misuse of the property,area is better served by the current zoning,this update process started as a bail-out process for the owner of 301 Airport,housing in that area with the bay views will be million dollar condos,not affordable; housing is ideal for the North Burlingame area,that area has close mass transit with regional access,housing on the Bayfront would be a short-term fix and a long-term disaster. Lived in Burlingame since 1980,have been using the Anza and Anza Extension areas for recreation all that time,have slowly watched development of the area,and it isn't half bad,the way it's landscaped,the trails, the businesses,fit into the long term plan,it's a wonderful place,when you talk about housing,wouldn't want to live there,its very windy,only two ways in and out traffic-wise,on top of that,it would put a second city where there are no services,would create an East Burlingame,no place to get a loaf of bread without getting in a car,it would take away some of the last nice open space,even with the current down slope,the economy will come back and the hotel market will improve;in terms of wind,it was the windsurfers who stopped the office project, if propose to put big buildings up for housing, they will block the wind. Developer has come up with a conceptual plan for the 301 site that would include affordable rental units, senior housing and market-rate condominiums,would also include convenience retail,our group believes it is possible to create a viable new neighborhood, could provide a high quality living area, there are a lot of benefits, including affordable housing, understand that the action tonight will determine if the housing possibility is kept alive,would like the opportunity for you to evaluate our proposal,have worked in a lot of communities to come up with solutions,hope we have the opportunity to work with you. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 Would like to compliment each member of the Commission and acknowledge the hard work of staff and the people from the community,as well as the people on the Working Group who were stakeholders,now at the end of the long process, had the benefit of their valuable input to the plan; came to the City Council originally and requested that the City start the process to update the Bayfront Specific Plan,the plan was put in place twenty years ago and it has succeeded, many of the goals of the plan have been reached, hotels, offices and restaurants built,now it is legitimate to ask if we want to rethink the goals,it may be that there are enough offices and hotels, and there are other sites where those uses can go, the Anza Point area is different from other places in the Bayfront area,it is far from the Airport,close to Coyote Point,it is a good idea to consider housing there because it would have less traffic impact,and it would be the only opportunity for a good sized affordable housing project,would be a way to get mixed use,if you offer the choice,it will give flexibility to attract different types of projects, everyone talks about affordable housing,but the only way to get it is if you can get the land at a decent price,there is an affordable housing component in the plan brought to you tonight,the developer is willing to donate the land for affordable housing,this is the only way to get significant affordable housing, this would not be a bail out for the developer, but a donation to the community, and the housing would remain permanently affordable. Represent a property owner in the Anza Point area, whether or not to have housing is the community's decision, there were plans approved for a 595-room hotel on client's site, economic studies indicate that hotels and offices are not feasible for ten years,would support allowing extended stay hotels in this area,the 85 rooms per acre may not help this property that much,don't think massive buildings will be approved in this area given the site's constraints so density may not be attainable,would support a housing overlay as an additional opportunity,given the wind and other issues,it would allow for smaller units compatible with the recreational opportunities in the area, would appreciate a conclusion on this issue, if housing is allowed, owner would want to do something compatible with the site across the street. Commissioners asked: what is the issue with extended stay and the 85 room per acre proposed density? Do you think that housing and extended stay hotels are not compatible? What uses were looked at for that site in the economic analysis,if the report says office and hotels won't happen for 10-15 years,there is a carrying cost,what will your client do? Have you had any other inquiries for other uses? Mr. Lanzone responded that given the type of hotel,would want to provide a campus like setting,probably propose about 700 rooms, would be below the maximum allowed. Other communities have extended stay and residential together,if it is proposed it should have a retail component,the two uses are not necessarily compatible. The economic analysis looked at hotels,offices and extended stay hotels as potential uses on that site,owner will hold on until they can do extended stay, they have owned the property since 1989, and it has been used for auto storage since that time. Scott Kirkman,USL properties representing New Town Hotels,the property owner, noted that they have explored everything,housing would give another alternative,right now the market rate for office space is$25 per SF,would need to be at least$40 per SF for a project to break even,don't see that happening for about 20 years,we hold BCDC permits on the site for a hotel project,studies done for the best use for this site determined that a staged extended stay hotel would be best, and that the hotel market will recover for that niche between 2007 and 2010,could do a Courtyard Marriott or similar project in stages,but would need to wait 3 to 5 years to begin;we did get an inquiry today from a residential home builder, and there appears to be some confidence that there is a need for that market, staff has always been very helpful when needed direction for this site. Have heard considerable discussion about the opportunity for housing,Burlingame now has a requirement -� for inclusionary affordable units, if developer does a project, it will have to include affordable housing, hoping that tonight there would be discussion of the pivotal areas of land use,why is the state-owned site designated for hotel use only, when it is a pivotal site for the Bayfront area as a whole, should provide 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 opportunities to make the area a destination, retail nodes should be designed around that issue, with a cultural center or museum as a focal point. Staff noted that the State lands parcel is limited because of its State ownership, the designation reflects State law. Have two businesses in the Bayfront area,have participated in the workshops,felt included and welcomed in the process, like what has been done looking at the whole picture, having a connected Bayfront trail, bringing residents to the area, the plan is forward thinking, deliberate, well adjusted with good ideas; housing has been the focal point of most of the discussion, in this environment with the airplanes, wind, noise,what is the value of homes, also where are the City services,the area is isolated,there would need to be increased police presence;also there would be future complaints from new residents about current uses in the area, such as fishing, people walking past residences on trails; like the design component of the plan, traffic flow on Broadway could be improved if the right turn south on freeway were designated only for right turns and the through traffic had its own lane,it would alleviate the back up across the interchange;everyone has been helpful in the process, people have given a lot of time to this project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chair Boju6s asked if Commissioners had any questions of staff. Commissioners asked: regarding the negative declaration,why was the analysis of housing limited to three sites and 800 total units? There is an existing bus route identified serving the Bayshore Highway portion of the area, could the bus route be extended to serve the rest of the area? In looking at the noise analysis worst case,the negative declaration notes that the noise level will increase because traffic increases, wouldn't it be less noisy if the cars are moving slower due to increased congestion?Why is ALUC concerned with aircraft noise in this area when the new plans are getting quieter? _ Staff noted that the location and number of housing units studied was based on Commission direction at the final study session. Bus routes are determined by SamTrans based on the ability of the area served to recover fare box revenue equal to 25%of the cost of providing service,extension to Anza would have to be determined by SamTrans based on estimated ridership fare box. The noise study looks at increases in noise as an average over time, and determined that the noise levels would increase, have to also take into consideration for speed the improved traffic flow as a result of the auxiliary lane project which is expected to be completed in the next few years. ALUC staff is noting a possible impact from single-event noise and potential impacts from the new large aircraft which may begin operations at SFO in 2006;it is not yet known how noisy they will be,but it is assumed that since the planes are much larger and will require more thrust to lift, that the noise levels may be higher than from current operations. Commission discussion: thank staff for a great job putting the plan together,thank the Working Group for their effort,noted that there were a meetings was held with some Commissioners with Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey regarding a housing proposal, would like to commend them and the landowner for putting together a plan that includes affordable housing,wanted to elaborate that although we do have inclusionary zoning rules,this proposal included more affordable units than the ordinance requires,twenty-five percent of the units would be administered so they would be affordable in perpetuity, so this option would provide a long-term solution; to have such a sizable chunk of the housing dedicated to affordable housing is a big asset, there is no other place in the City that this could be done at this scale. Continued discussion: appreciate the time spent by Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey in presenting the _ proposal, agree that affordable housing is something we need, project presented shows a mixture of uses, senior housing, affordable rentals and market rate condominiums,the concept is good but don't agree with the project's placement in this area; we are also working on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 Plan as a potential area for housing, and looking at the Peninsula Hospital site where many of the surrounding offices may move onto the hospital site,there will be an opportunity for housing there on the existing office sites; that area also has BART, bus routes and Caltrain nearby, there are Transit Oriented Development programs offered through San Mateo County which grant jurisdictions incentive funds for affordable housing within one-third mile of mass transit,that would not work in the Bayfront,no transit in that area, more suitable for the North end of Burlingame,the infrastructure and services are already there, can't create that on the Bayfront,the Police Department now has one officer per shift in the Bayfront area,if residential is added,there will be an increase in calls and they won't increase the patrols,there will be cuts in this year's budget, if there are staff cutbacks there won't be the ability to increase services to this area, also would have to cut down the preventative patrols for the industrial area and hotels that the Police Department now does in this area;would look at this issue differently if this were the only area for housing,but have to look at the long-term goals of Burlingame,would get development immediately and revenue in short-term, but there are other opportunities,could put convention centers,once housing is developed there would be no more revenues long-term,would get more revenue from hotels,don't see as a neighborhood that would fit or work well with the Burlingame we have now. Commissioners continued: seems like what we are doing is weighing the pros and cons and providing guidance to the City Council,what struck me about the alternative plans is that the premise of the Specific Plan was that the area provide a strong economic base,has there been a change in policy of the City that we should deviate from that premise? still of a mindset that we should not;bothered that there had been some analysis of the best,highest use of a property in Anza Point,would like to see that,Mr.Hudak said that the best thing is to give the land owner the most open zoning and we will get the best product,ifwe open it up to residential,they will apply,even if we don't have the other economic study,based on the data we have,don't see a reason to change from the premise to maintain a strong economic base;other communities are getting wise to the revenue-generating characteristic of hotels,even if we want them,other communities have gotten wind of our secret and the market is saturated at this time, other point that came out of the meeting with Charmaine Curtis and Amy Bailey was that even if housing is put only just on a part of Anza Point, will have to put in infrastructure,other services,and other residential will follow,this area will not be integrated with the rest of the community,will be a second city,not a viable integrated vibrant part of our community. Commission discussion continued: hate to base my decision solely on fiscal issues, good we have an economic base in the area and it should be preserved but that is not the only issue, in reviewing the fiscal impact, it is even positive with housing, two or three years ago, the Planning Commission reviewed the office project at 301 Airport,we said office doesn't work and some commissioners were touting housing,in the current economy,saying there can be no housing is a reaction,when the economy was booming and there was plenty of revenue, it was not an issue, now with a downturn it has become an issue, no housing for financial reasons is a reaction to the economic situation,to the north in Millbrae,there are commercial uses supporting the Airport,and to the south are recreation and residential uses in San Mateo,housing at southern end would fit in, and the plan shows strong industrial commercial component at the northern end; also, would like the plan to unite the east and west sides of town, and housing will help do that more than any other use; won't necessarily be the same as the other side,but people would come back and forth between, there is a regional need for housing, and we would have the possibility of having affordable units in perpetuity; have thought of this area as a strong industrial base, the current plan was written twenty years ago, now there is a different dynamic,this is a desirable place to live with great recreational opportunities, allowing people to live out there will tie the town together,enhance pedestrian activity and provide another opportunity for housing for people in Burlingame. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26,2004 Continued discussion: the discussion about housing is not just about a bailout for the current owner,housing was discussed and specifically left out when current plan was adopted for specific reasons,included housing now based on points made by the economist,we wouldn't see hotels for 15 years and offices for 20 years,the revenue shown projected for hotels is phantom; also,the Bay Area Council advises cities that when offices and jobs are encouraged, housing should also be included and that went into my decision; it was stated tonight that financial advisors said 2007 to 2010 for hotel market to return, would like to see that information to help us make decision. Commissioner discussion: we have had a strong economic base in past and will in the future, there are projections for timing of office market,but there are also increases in office rents now in Burlingame,there is a lower vacancy rate in Burlingame than in the rest of San Mateo County,think we should have affordable housing, but this is not the right location, North Burlingame is more appropriate for housing than the Bayfront area,we should want to connect more to Broadway to bring visitors to the shops and restaurants; would be a separate city in Burlingame,would they have adequate police and fire protection,based on this information, am against housing in the Bayfront. Continued discussion: sympathetic to land owner and high carrying costs,it is a drain on land owner,but much as like to help corporation,for the City it is not a wise policy to let the market dictate land use policy, the City and the Council have the responsibility to say what we want our City to be, the market will be flexible enough to follow land use policies;take issue with the revenue-generating potential of housing,there may be a moderate immediate return but not the magnitude of commercial for long term,this is important to the city, bothered that if the seed is planted for residential, will grow into more retail and residential and impact the potential for the entire area. `— Commissioners continued: went out to the site and spent time sitting, concern was raised about this area becoming and island separate from Burlingame,would we be more connected to people on Chapin than in this area, don't know,Hong Kong is a rocky,mountainous area with many pockets and people love it, less concerned with the island of humanity,also struck by comments that something will be built quickly if you plan for it; land across the road has been a parking lot for 14 years, also wonder, this is a special area underutilized by all of us, have a huge vacant site, this would bring people over there and make it more attractive, the economy seems to be turning around, concern with freeway access at Peninsula, might be better to wait two or three years and see what Caltrans will do at Peninsula interchange,if we decide to do that,residences would make the area more alive than offices,which tend to be sterile. Discussion continued: brought up a point that concerns me,if you put residential out there,people will just sleep there, they will go elsewhere for entertainment; we need to think outside the box and make this a destination area,there are all the people staying in hotels but no place to go, something more substantial,a use that would attract people to go there, that may be the solution, but don't think with residential it will work,there is not enough to keep people there,there is a demand,but once people are there and realize they don't have libraries, retail, etc., they will be asking for those services and there won't be a place to put it. Commissioner discussion: think we have a great lifestyle in Burlingame because it is walkable but don't think people will say they don't want to live there because there is no library within walking distance; it won't be identical,but they would enjoy a wonderful lifestyle;heart warmed by input from Commissioners, but hotel community has indicated there are hubs in other communities that have snitched some of the golden egg, as the market comes back, it will not necessarily land in Burlingame, there is an absorption factor with the vacancy rate,so it may be some time before anything is built;now have conference center in South San Francisco that takes some of the market away,when plan was developed in the 1980's,housing 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 was discussed, but today's economy is such that it will continue as it has, should have a broader range of what can come, and can look at proposals as they come up; with an entertainment destination such as an aquarium, the cost is monumental and who is going to go; land will lay idle unless we broaden the opportunity for landowners,have pros and cons,there are so many variables,we need to look at the land use policy and look at a proposal and decide if it is something that might work; a proposal will have to go through the Planning Department, the Commission and the Council, and the plan will give direction of Burlingame for tomorrow. Continued discussion: if we permit housing in the plan,and a proposal comes forward,how would you just say no; on what basis would you refuse; if you look closely and feel the design and density fits, could say yes,if not,no;if allow as a conditional use,there are any number of parameters;but if a developer comes to us, if housing is a permitted land use,we won't be able to outright reject,only can look at design,form and density,the inability to provide a straight answer demonstrates that point; let us not forget about the North Burlingame Specific Plan,and the housing component there,it will work much better at that location,would find it difficult to find a reason to deny once it is put into the plan as a possible use; the North end is a wonderful place for housing, what turned it around for me was the big chunk of affordable housing proposed,problem with the North end is there are a lot of different owners and each project will do the bare minimum of affordable,want to see larger amount of affordable,that's what attractive about this proposed project;from a business perspective,would say compared to Millbrae or Burlingame,Burlingame is a more desirable location for hotels because of the Bayfront environment;try not to lose sight that we don't have a project in front of us,as attractive as that plan is,we don't have that plan in front of us,while am aproponent of affordable housing,not at the expense of the overall land use policy,would be going for a short-term fix to guide for many years in the future, there are other places where housing can and will be developed,the -� conceptual plan was with a segment of affordable housing which is attractive,but not the way to make land use decisions. Commissioners continued: are there other uses precluded that we have not considered for retail nodes, would have to amend the plan, have goals and policies set up to encourage aquarium, other destination features; when we look at improving the bay trail, the highest priority should be where Broadway hits the trail north. Commissioners requested the following changes to the text of the plan: • correct the typo in Policy A-I to read"a vibrant,visitor-oriented destination" and office warehouse commercial employment center; • Add Policy C-4: Enhance the Anza Point Area and Fisherman's Park as a recreational destination; • Revise Figure III-5 and text to include extended stay hotels on the State lands parcel in the Anza Area; In the "Alternative with Housing" Errata Pages: • Add Policy D-7: Any housing project shall have a 20 percent affordable component; • Add Policy to encourage extension of a bus route to serve the entire Bayfront area; • Amend the policies to encourage a destination commercial recreation feature of a large scale at the retail nodes or along the lagoon frontage. C. Auran made a motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. The motion was seconded by C.Brownrigg. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The --� motion passed on a 7-0 vote. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 C. Auran then made a motion to recommend to Council approval of the Bayfront Specific Plan as drafted. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Osterling then made a motion to approve the Bayfront Specific Plan errata pages,with housing included as an option on three selected sites. The motion was seconded by C.Auran. C.Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the housing overlay option. The motion failed on a 3-4 vote (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran, Keel and Boju6s dissenting). Chair Boju6s then made a motion to approve the plan without the housing component. The motion was seconded by C.Keighran. Chair Boju6s called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the plan without the housing component. The motion passed on a 4-3 vote(Cers. Osterling,Vistica,and Auran dissenting). Staff noted this item would go forward to City Council in March or April after the Airport Land Use Commission and C/CAG have reviewed the plan. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE,LOT A AND LOT B ZONED R-1- a. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE,LOT A-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING b. 1261 BALBOA AVENUE,LOT B-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING c. APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT �- (RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;CHRISTINE MUNDING, PROPERTY OWNER) (82 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked CA Anderson if they could look at the lot by the creek as being 85%buildable at 5,100 SF and base allowable FAR on that rather than the entire 6,000 SF lot. CA Anderson stated that 85%buildable area can be used as a guideline. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Christine Munding,property owner, 1261 Balboa Avenue,noted that she is building two houses, she will live in the smaller creek side one and will sell the other house to support her retirement. The existing house is one bedroom,one bathroom,bought from original owner. She moved in 1984. The garage is falling down and house is not in shape to repair. New homes will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Oak tree on property is diseased, spend a lot of money to balance the tree,but branches have broken off and fallen on the car,no way to save the tree. Commission asked if there are other family members that will be living there, owner stated that she will be the only one living there. Commission asked how far out the branches reach from the oak tree at the rear,owner stated that tree sits in creek,tows over garage, PG&E comes and cuts chunks out of the tree, so it is unbalanced. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road,project architect, noted house on the south side, lot A, is a style from the teens, examples are found in Burlingame and San Mateo, has wide soffets,wide trim, grouped windows, wood water table. The big one story section at the front has been placed under the Magnolia tree,tried work around what was there. The creek side lot, lot B is a long skinny house, has been setback as far from the creek as possible, all of the living area rooms look out on the creek, it has an attached garage to keep the creek side of the lot open. The house does have four bedrooms for one woman,but wanted to consider re- 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 sale value for the future. Tried not to have windows of two houses facing each other, there are no living space windows facing each other. Size of house on lot A is at maximum,can look at removing a bathroom. Looked at rotating the family room at the rear to give extra backyard space, but decided to keep as much open space along the creek as possible instead.There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: Lot A • Big house, a lot of mass and bulk with two houses on a lot where there was one; 0 Windows should be coordinated between houses; • Right side wall is big,need to see variation in plate height,bring down in some areas; • On landscape plan there is reference to #18, but there is no #18 plant described on legend; • Landscape plan calls out tree protection measures on a 6"diameter tree,will be tight to put around, might just consider replacing that tree; • Concern with lot split, across the street there are two lots, but the creek jogs 10-12'and there is a bigger lot created;not sure second lot works here,wanted to call this issue to attention as a problem before applicant works on design issues; • Looks like a big train from the street, long big house,need to scale back; 0 There are two 6,000 SF lots;well designed, in favor of concept; • Designer did a nice job on both houses,lot A needs to be decreased,better articulated on sides,each lot is 6,000 SF, but need to look at actual buildable area, want to see story poles, looks long and narrow,there is space around house,but not sure that this is right house for the lot; 0 FAR rules are met,has used open space around creek, o.k. with proposal; • Don't know about lot split; and • Story poles would help visualize houses, almost necessary to decide on this project. Lot B • Compliment architect, front entry on lot B is set back so visitors get to walk along the creek, nice design; • Architect has capitalized on creek side setting, but there is a need for story poles to see if house clears the trees; • Need story poles to visualize two houses on the lot,lot B is long narrow house,how will this fit in on the site, is oriented to the creek with entrance down the walkway; • Not much of a backyard; • Nice job on designs,nice long house on the creek lot, narrow profile to street works to keep open space on the creek. Commission discussion: hate to see applicant put up story poles if lot split is not right for this property;do not want to see applicant put work into design changes if lot split is not appropriate for this site;let applicant decide how to bring this back either bring the lot split forward by itself, or revise the project and bring it back all together; if just lot split need to install story poles so see now could be developed; applicant can decide if she wants to make design changes and then erect story poles to reflect changes and bring project back as an action item or separate out the lot split, show story poles, get that decision then work further on the design. Chair Bojues made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the applicant decides how she wishes to proceed, 1) bring lot split forward as separate item with strop poles based on the current 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26,2004 proposal;or 2)revise plans,erect story poles to reflect changes and bring the lot split and design review back together. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the project has been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:05 p.m. 8. 1433 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment.James Chu,Chu Design and Engineering,39 W.43rd Avenue,San Mateo,project designer, straight forward project,4 bedrooms,4 %z bathrooms,project is 131 SF under the maximum FAR allowed,there is still a lot of open space on the lot. Worked to stay within zoning limits,no special permits with this request. Commission noted that proposed height is right at 30', is applicant comfortable that height will not be exceeded when constructed? James Chu stated that all construction will be within required limits. Commission asked when construction is slated to begin. James Chu stated that they hope to begin construction in three months. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: well designed project; nice articulation; is running up against maximum FAR, but there is a built in buffer of square footage; want to see true divided light windows on this project. Chair Boju6s called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. 9. 9 BAYSWATER AVENUE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(ANDREA COSTANZO,ADAMES DESIGN GROUP,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GLENN AND ALMA GROSSMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Andrea Constanzo, project designer, explained that when the property owners hired her that they had four criteria to be met: 1) 4 bedrooms,have 2 children; 2) family room; 3) front porch, want to add entrance now have double doors to get to house; and 4)remove second unit,which is currently used for storage,just want to have garage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 26, 2004 The Planning Commission had the follow comments: • Want to make sure using true divided light windows; —� • Left side elevation,windows on the first floor are not consistent with the addition and the rest of the house, all windows should be consistent; and • Outdoor light on the second floor balcony should be removed,or designed to just shine down on the deck, not beyond, as required by the City's exterior illumination ordinance. C.Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojues called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:17 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 20,2004 AND THE SPECIAL COUNCIL STUDY MEETING ON JANUARY 24, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions of the Council meeting of January 20,2004;noted the general conclusions regarding the goals of the Council for FY 2004-05 and the budget limitations the City is facing for FY 2004-05 and the implications for the following years. CP Monroe asked the Commission to consider how they would like to review a possible back log of design review projects. Commission directed that the staff fill the February 9, 2004 agenda, then --� determine if, because of the agendized study sessions of the draft North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, a special meeting should be scheduled in March to catch up. Staff agreed. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Boju6s adjourned the meeting at 11:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary S:/MINUTES/01.26.04UNAPPROVEDMINUTES 16 Revisions to City of Burlingame Unapproved Minutes January 12, 2004 Corrections proposed by Commissioner Brownrigg to Item 8 of the City of Burlingame, Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, January 12, 2004 Proposed corrections shown in strike aut and italics below 8. APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, REAL ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (349 RADIUS NOTICE/95 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED/NEWSPAPER NOTICE)PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application to add four uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, noting that if these uses were found to be consistent with the General Plan designation for the Broadway Center, CEQA issues would be addressed. Commissioners asked: if one of these uses were allowed for a trial period, say 24 months, by condition could the commission limit the lease to 24 months. CA responded it would be a problem for enforcement, leases are not city business, if the use were conditional the city could make it "temporary" and limit the use permit to 5 years for example, as we do on the Bayfront and the conditional use permit would be subject to review and could be revoked at that time; however, in general it should be expected that if uses are allowed and spaces filled that they will remain as the currently non-conforming uses in the Broadway Area have. In 1969 when the General Plan was approved any use was allowed them in 1984 the uses were limited, why? In the early 1980's the city was looking at Burlingame Avenue to create a high pedestrian traffic retail center (subarea A), Broadway merchants and property owners asked to be treated the same, so the Broadway Commercial Area was created with the same regulations as Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area. How many store fronts are vacant at this time? CP did not know exact number at this time. Can the same kind of limitation of number and type used for food establishments be created for financial institutions and real estate offices. CA responded we do not have enough information to be able to determine the correct number; with food establishments we started with the number in the area at the time we established the regulation, that would not work here since the issue is creating opportunity for more of each of these four uses. Regulating the number and mix of uses needs to be based on a plan for Broadway. There is no plan or vision for Broadway which addresses the appropriate number of each of these four uses. Commissioner asked if any limit on the maximum square footage of each of these uses is proposed. CP noted no, in general the lots are small on Broadway and that limits the size of the individual commercial areas. Commissioner asked if two of each use could be allowed and the city could develop a lottery system to decide how to fill the opportunities. CP noted that the city had some experience with a lottery system as the food establishment regulations evolved and it was unhappy. Would not like to repeat. Do these uses address issues like Pilates? CP noted the City has other regulations in effect now which address physical fitness and training in the Broadway area. There were no further questions or comments from the commission. 1 Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. David Hinkle, 1616 Sanchez; John Root, 1407 Montero;Virginia Vince, 1301 Paloma;Maida Bezdjian,applicant, 1199 Broadway;Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway; Ross Bruce, President Broadway BID; Saco Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway all spoke. As a BID advisory board member support the merchants opinion as expressed in the 80%support for the four uses in survey;position of BID board is to support members recommendation and to recommend if adopt the four uses,you should include a two year trial period; as a citizen, merchant and property owner on Broadway opposed to any change to the retail structure in the Broadway Commercial Area, like to keep the pedestrian orientation and protect retail. Afraid of unintended consequences,fear that allowing these uses will result in"shuttered windows and store fronts", doctors do not open windows for people passing by to look into;San Mateo has had a lot of experience with this,the Judd Green store for example which went dot.com with a very bad result on the retail area,in the end they did the same thing—limited these uses. Would like to see the retail neighborhood"feel"with small businesses of Broadway preserved,lots of change new families;feel that Broadway has turned the comer on the vacancies; contacted Paul Ferrari CEO of the Italian Market Place, he expressed desire to explore Broadway because he is looking for neighborhood locations e.g. location with quality, small businesses not corporate; see Broadway as an opportunity to support small local businesses which is different from Burlingame Avenue. Commissioner asked why start business on Broadway?Demographics in area have changed,lot of new young families can walk or bike to Broadway, rents have skyrocketed on Burlingame Avenue, Broadway rents much more reasonable. Commissioner asked do you think banks and real estate offices would be detrimental to Broadway? Had banks before, so OK,object to health services and other business offices; real estate seems more appropriate on El Camino Real where there is more space; Broadway is for small businesses, a destination for shopping, bakery,deli's,where people will continue to return. Public comment continued: applicant stated heard pros and cons, the property at 1199 Broadway has been vacant for more than two years,now 4 to 5 vacancies besides 1199;current restrictions on uses hurt her financially, few people go to the stores, have had several prospective tenants,dentists,asset to Broadway,would raise revenue for the city and would generate foot traffic;there is a lot of available parking;also get a lot of calls for restaurants and delis, 4 to 5 today, referred them to the city;took a petition to 91 merchants and property owners who signed it,available to the city, supports removal of all C-1 zoning regulations in the Broadway area; BID wrote a letter to the Planning Department requesting that the city allow dental office on first floor at 1199,there was no response;have spent a lot of time and effort to rent,nothing has happened;need to remove restrictions it would benefit the merchants and the city revenue. Commissioner asked there are a few new businesses on Broadway, why has your site been empty two years? Don't know,the interested people are dentists and delis. Lot of vacancy on Broadway,people come and go,tenants change during the time this request for uses has been processed; time to change uses allowed, have had inquiries from mortgage company, real 2 estate, insurance company health service; problem really is discrimination, there are already eye doctors and physical therapists on Broadway, have been told I cannot have a real estate office in my own building; no use in allowing health services on the second floor when the building does not have ADA accessibility; over 90 people signed the petition we took around, met with city staff, they noted that the wording was for the removal of all C-I restrictions, city staff wanted to do it their own way, OK; asked BID to write a letter. Commission asked to see the petition; it was not provided. CA noted that staff did not tell the applicant not to submit the petition. Submitted September 19, 2003, letter requested from BID supporting allowing the four uses requested and noting that the petition was not intending to eliminate the entire C-1 zoning restrictions but was to allow the four requested uses (health services, other office uses, real estate and financial institutions). The letter noted that "The petition was merely loosely worded". Applicant noted that City planner did do"ballot" on Broadway. The record is clear, there is discrimination, his family is suffering, want these four uses to get rid of the vacancy in his building, need to lease it soon. Commissioners asked it is surprising to be two years without tenants. Now asking city to change zoning; want to determine if this is a result of market restrictions or market pricing, therefore it is fair to ask which will have an impact on other residents, based on the fact that you have vacancies what rent are you asking? Mer-ehants want Mer-ehthe ehangethe maFket " B-eadway _ is net <etail. Asking $2.29 to $2.49 per square foot, way below Burlingame Avenue; have made improvements to building including a new roof and awning, think that his rate is below market. Commissioner noted that if truly below market the space would be full. Applicant noted that uses most interested are not allowed, restaurants and delis. Comments from public indicated actual average rents on Broadway. Commissioner asked over the years Broadway has gone through a genesis, are there other types of businesses which might do well there now? Don't know, would like to loosen regulations and let the free market make the decisions because we are having difficulty now. Commissioner asked based on your real estate experience what is the current range of rental rates in the Broadway area? Depends upon the size of the space and the condition of the building, but generally range from $1.50 to $2.00 per square foot; $2.29 per square foot is not below market rate; 1199 is the newest building on the street, it has some dedicated parking on-site and a good corner location, can get better rents than older, run down building. Public comment continued: For the record there are 8 first floor vacancies on Broadway, 3 have leases pending, of the 5 remaining vacancies , three are in Mr. Bezdjian's building at 1199; there are a couple of offices on the second floor also vacant. Would like all four uses to be conditional uses for a two year trial period, this would give the city control and flexibility as well as giving the ability to see if there were unintended consequences. Been a tenant at 1199 for two years, issue has been blurred, these four uses would not result in "closed shutters", they would be neighborhood businesses and would regenerate Broadway; his four employees generate business for Broadway, without service businesses retail would not survive because there is not enough foot traffic; look into allowing for 24 months, stop after that, Broadway needs something. There was no more comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: did own research of residents west of Broadway and people who work on Airport Blvd.; consensus was do not want dental offices, financial institutions on Broadway, 3 want more retail; need to hear from residents. In the past uses rolled in and out of Broadway, may have dried up because of competition from Big Boxes and Burlingame Plaza — sucked away by the larger full service businesses; community loyalty drifted away; need to infuse quality merchants to draw people, agree not want windows curtained to block view into stores. Question the value of health service, visits take an hour or more, dentist sees 8 – 10 people a day much less foot traffic than retail and uses a lot of street frontage space; what we need to do is rejuvenate quality merchants; financial institutions and real estate uses generate pedestrian activity, real question is how does the use add foot traffic. At last meeting asked for more data to understand existing conditions and understand what effects change in use might have; information like existing FAR by use; no information provided so cannot make a educated decision. Mentioned before that could do a trial, but without information unwilling because don't know if open to office might result in 40% of Broadway becoming office use; talked to merchants, lot of residents and received mixed responses; merchant survey helpful; people live here, the vision of Broadway is more local Business, Burlingame Avenue is the primary source of business revenue; need data about what is there, the percentage of different types of businesses, exact vacancies and where they are located. Concerned about comments about shutters being closed affecting the street, all closed could have the same effect as 10 vacancies; a lot of people talk about wanting a bakery on Broadway. CA noted could do now if there was no seating. Commission discussion continued: If rezone for one landowner, do we need to consider the input of others; sympathetic toward financial institutions and real estate uses, should be permitted; an 18 month trial period should be considered General office and health service uses should be by eenditienal _. _-: not be allowed at all. an 'Q month trial peFW Big impact is unlikely in 18 months since it will take anyone several months to put a business together and find a location; banks and real estate offices can be a part of a neighborhood service area. Agree an 18 –24 month trial period may be the answer; concerned that may join existing spaces to create offices and get 4,000 SF which would have a big impact; hear testimony that employees create foot traffic, want commercial area that draws people in, lived here 30 years seen Broadway change; all agree on what we would like to see, but cannot compel it to happen; if restrict real estate cannot be certain the vacant space will cause a bakery to locate there. As real estate professional would like to see rent survey, when a space remains vacant it can take years to recoup loss. Believe in free enterprise but more comfortable keeping area as is because not enough information to evaluate impact, article in Independent about Fourth Street area in Berkeley, developer successful because he knew what it took to bring quality tenants to area, that is the approach to take;Broadway has the advantage of having residents nearby, lot of people and merchants concerned about change, and resulting increase in rents which would squeeze out small businesses. There are 5 vacancies in the Broadway area now, 3 are in the applicant's building, this means that there are really 2 vacancies and this is not enough to justify a change in uses; applicant reduced his rent he could fill his space from the current use list; should leave zoning uses are is and seek out small businesses. Chair Bojues moved to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request for four additional uses in Broadway Commercial Area. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. 4 Comment on the motion: Would be willing to consider financial institutions '°__—=t watild--help reduce aea;eie in keeping with the neighborhood "main street"; the current number of vacancies is not enough to justify this kind of change; several commissioners noted they could support financial institutions as a permitted use; given definition, if allow financial institutions should be a conditional use because they are a conditional use in the C-1 district; is there a way to allow the applicant to operate a real estate business from his building without changing the code. CA responded no, would need to identify real estate use as either a permitted or conditional use. C. Osterling made a motion to amended his original motion to recommend to City Council that financial institutions be allowed as a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial Area with a 24 month sunset. C. Auran, second to the original motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request change from prohibited to permitted real estate, general office and health service uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area and that they change from prohibited to a conditional use financial institutions on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area for a period of 24 months. Following the 24 months financial institutions would become, once again, a prohibited use in the Broadway Commercial Area. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent). It was noted that this action now goes forward to the City Council as a recommendation for their action. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 5 @;omcast Comcast Communications Inc. 12647 Alcosta Blvd, Suite 200, P.O. Box 5147 San Ramon, CA 94583 Tel: 925.973.7000 Fax: 925.973.7015 www.comcast.com January 26, 2004 Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: In a letter dated December 23, 2003 we notified your office of a programming addition scheduled to take place on February 4, 2004. The purpose of this letter is to inform your office of a postponement to the programming adjustment date. Comcast will add the Starz! Kids channel to the Digital service on March 17, 2004-in your community. As always, if you should have any questions please feel free to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 289- 6794. Sincerely, Mitzi Givens-Russell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area