Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2008.09.02
�Q'$/CITY O_�, BURLINGAME Qx- 01. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING REVISED AGENDA Tuesday, September 2, 2008 CLOSED SESSION: - 5:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Personnel Matter: Review of candidates for City Attorney (Government Code § 54957) b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1),(3)(C)): Claim of J. Bennett Claim of Robert Miller Claim of Michael Porrazzo & Michelle Porrazzo STUDY SESSION: - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a. Green Ribbon Task Force 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m.—Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of August 18, 2008 5. PRESENTATIONS a. Senator Leland Yee speaking on State Budget- POSTPONED b. Proclamation for the Library Centennial c. Library Recognition Awards 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Public Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance amending Title 26 of the Municipal Code, Subdivision Regulations, to specify requirements for conversion of Stock Cooperatives to Condominiums b. (i) Adopt Ordinance establishing Public Facilities Impact Fee Process; (ii) Approve Resolution adopting Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within thejurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduce an Ordinance amending Municipal Code Section 9.04.014 to allow dogs to be off-leash for the areas of the upper field at Cuernavaca Park and the eastern most lawn in Washington Park -Introduce b. Resolution opposing fiscally irresponsible State budget decisions that would "borrow" Local Government, Redevelopment and Transportation Funds— Discuss/Approve 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approval of out-of-state travel for Finance Director to Richmond, Virginia to attend ICMA Conference b. Resolution denying the appeal of Chris Dunning and upholding the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of permits related to the expansion of an existing residence at 1837 Hunt Drive c. Resolution awarding a construction contract to Casey Construction, Inc. for the miscellaneous storm drainage improvement project d. Resolution approving the addition of administrative policy for Public Records Act requests 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 12. OLD BUSINESS 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. City Clerk Vacancy 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, June 12, 2008; Beautification, August 7, 2008 b. Department Reports: Police, July, 2008 C. Letters from Community Gatepath; Sustainable San Mateo County; Call Primrose; and Parca gratefully acknowledging the City's contribution 15. 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.burl ingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING—MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. ySIERRA U r CLUB Affif y 3 [i Cool Cities Local Government y Climate Action Survey 2008: _„, .A.Report on Climate Protection Policies and Practices in San Mateo and Santa Mara County Jurisdictions FINAL EDI`1'ION,AUGUST 11, `008 The Loma Prieta Chapter's Climate Action Campaign Loma Prieta Chapter Cool Cities Core Team Rafael Reyes. Co-Chair Cool Cities Core.Team Margaret Suozzo Co-Chair Cool Cities Core Team Gary Bailey Co-chair,Global Warming Program, Loma Prieta Chapter,Sierra Chili Julio Magalhaes Global V'"arming Program Coordinator. Loma Prieta Chapter,Sierra Club Chris WarshawProgram on Energy and Sustainable Development,Stanford University Report Authors' ,Julio Magalhaes Global Warming Program Coordinator, Loma Prieta Chapter,Sierra Club Margaret Suozzo' Co-Chair Cool Cities Core Team David Warn Cool Cities San Jose Team Acknowledgements: This report and the success of the Cool Cities Campaign in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties have been made possible through the hard work of the dedicated Climate Action Campaign volunteers working for local action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: Stephanie Reyes K Pierre Delforge (co-founders of the Chapter's Cool Cities Campaign),Kurt Newick(Chair of the Chapter's Global Warming and Energy Committee)and the Cool Cities volunteer leaders:Gladwyn D'Souza, Mike McCord,Linda Hagan,Sali Sehille,Marah Curry,Sofia Freer,Kacey Fitzpatrick,Jeannie Brains,Rob Rennie,Susan Baugh,Chris Bui,Carol McClelland,Robert Fairbank,Dave Paradise,Beth Mezias, Bruce Hodge,Bryan Long Rick Nordensten,Frank Schwartz,Julie Willard,Jay Hall,David Marsland, Annie Stauffer,Chris Pitt,Eve Matelan,Barbara Fukumoto and the Cool Cities team members. This reportwould not have been possible without the financial support of the Loma Prieta Chapter's over 2o,000 members who seekto"Enjoy,Explore',and Protect"planet Earth. Design & Graphics Gigantic Idea Studio Data graphics by,Julio Magalhaes Akeend A generous contribution byAkeena Solar to the Loma Prieta Chapter's Solar Climate Action Campaign has helped make this report possible. III ii 1iiuu111i liiiu uu 1 mum 1 I �I 1 1 _B,eport on Clirnate Prvt� t�ax�lP�l����� end.Pa c ctt cis in Sa,4 ate �zr�c� 1 ClimateI Local Government i : a�to�€ r s cru r Action Survey s cts n =. Y l L n The Cool Cities Campaign of the Loma Prieta 6. Widespread t.,ncourageincrntof•transit oriented Chapter of the Sierra Club conducted in March or mixed use devr;loprrsr:n�i;offers the potential 2oo8 a survey of climate protection policies and of rr2ducing cornrnute related emissions from practices of city and county governments in Santa the broader con-imun ty. Clara and San Mateo counties.Twenty-eight of (vc ri OVernme.�nts are increasingiv adopt i rig the 37jurisdictions inthe two-county area(76% srgnih, antgreenbuildmgstandards for their by number,go%by population)responded to the buildings bur,Itlurr;cff`o r t is nc cd ed to spur green 3o-question survey.This report presents results renovations in c xisti1-1g I}uildi na . from the survey and provides a snapshot of local government planning and actions on greenhouse gas a Progress o n encour•agrrig or requir i ng new (GHG)emissions reductions.The purpose of this privately-owned buildings to meet signifrcart report is to increase awareness of the state of climate green building standards is currently still iiea1:, action by local governments in our area,to facilitatebut the trend is sarnewhat encouiaging. the exchange of best practices,and to advocate for decisive action worthy of the magnitude of the 9. The challenge of encouraging or requiring climate change challenge. existing buildings(%vhrch make up the vast Key Conclusions- rnajority of the burl(envi ronrnent)to rrrect signifrt ant green building standards after major t. Local guvernrnents in San;r�tatev and Santa Clara renovatruns or remodels is not being met. Counties shot+ rapidlY growing crgagemcnton climate protect,on ro.Our results show that surprisingly few local governments have the capacity to gener4te . Achievement of essential milestones toward solar powe r[rorn systems on their facilities emission reduction is still generally lagging while at I 11 sarrre time the vast majority of the andnot consistent with Silicon Valley'shistoric fur•isdictiunsarefacilitating the installationof leadership role in either areas sol;arpo%�crsysteins inthe community 3. The high level of completed tri unicipal ern issior, rr. A rich varied,of local jurischctions are already 'inventoriesexpectedbythe end of zoo&as well leading in Specific narrow arerrrsaf' T11G as the expected completion of community, ern fission reductions, jurisdictions inventories by nearly two thirds of the jurisdictions is encouraging;. Our region appears to be poised to regain a leadership role on local government action on 4• -Green vehicles are slowly becorning part of many climate protection if local government leaders act local goveiiarnent fleets,but rapid increases quickly and decisively. Our survey results suggest a e likely su,onas many iurisdictions adopt public engagement with local government leaders procurement policies favoring such purchases' combined with regional initiatives and other More jurisdictions need to offer multiple resources from beyond city and county government incentives for alternative commuting methods is essential for rapid decisive action to occur at and provide a model for the private-sector a level needed to meet the climate change/clean to address the;Iarge',contribution of the energy challenge, transportation sector. "AGE r Cool Cities a� Local Government Climate i Action Survey il : o � The Cool Cities Campaign of the Loma Prieta 6 Widespread encouragement of transit oriented Chapter of the Sierra Club conducted in March or rruxed use development offers the potential 2oo8 a survey of climate protection policies and of reducing commute related en-iissions from practices of city and county governments in Santa the broader community. Clara and San Mateo counties.Twenty-eight of the 37 jurisdictions in the two-county area(76% Local governments are increasingly adopting by number,go%by population)responded to the significant green building standards fur,the r 3o-question survey.This report presents results buildings but inure erfort isneeded to spur green from the survey and provides a snapshot of local renovations in existing buildi�n's. government planning and actions on greenhouse gas 8. progress on cncuur aging or requrring new (GHG)emissions reductions.The purpose of this Privately-owned buildings to meet significant. report is to increase awareness of the state of climate green building standards is currentl still weak, gee g ' y action by local governments in our area,to facilitate but the trend is somewhat encouraging.the exchange of best practices,and to advocate for decisive action worthy of the magnitude of the q. The challenge of encouraging or requiring climate change challenge. existing buildings(which make up the vast Key Conclusions: majority of the built environment)to meet significant green building standards after major r. Local governments in San Mateo and Santa Clara renovations or remodels is notbeingmet. Counties show rapidly growing engagement on climate protection '� ro.Our results show that surprisingly few local governments have the capacity to generate 2. Achievement of essential milestones toward solar power from systems on their facilities emission reduction is still generally lagging whileat the same time the vast majority of the and not consistent with Silicon Valley's historic jurisdictions are facilitati ng the installation of leadership role in otherareas solarpuwver systems in the community- 3. the high level of cornpleted niunicipal emission i r. A rich varietv,of IOCal jtrrisdietions are already ins entories expected by the end of 2oo8 as well leading in specific narrow areas of GHG a the expected completion of communityemission reductions: wide;inventories by nearly two-thirds of the jurisdictions is encouraging. Our region appears to be poised to regain a leadership role on local government action on ,l. Green vehicles are slowly becoming part of many climate protection if local government leaders act local uovcrnment fleets,but rapid increases quickly and decisively. Our survey results suggest are dal<clv soon as many jurisdictions adopt public engagement with local government leaders procurement policies favoring such purchases_ combined with regional initiatives and other 5. More jurisdictions need to offer i-nultiple resources from beyond city and county government incentives for alternative commuting methods is essential for rapid decisive action to occur at and provide a model for the private-sector a level needed to meet the climate change/clean to address the large contribution of the energy challenge. transportation sector. PAGE i Cool Citiesy, Local Government Climate Action Survey EIN li8 i level.Here we use the term Cool Cities to represent NMI „ ' both efforts—Cool Cities and Cool Counties —focused on local government action.The Loma The Cool Cities Campaign of the Loma Prieta Prieta Chapter's Cool Cities effort officially started Chapter of the Sierra Club`conducted in March in March 2007 after an initial development phase 2008 a survey of climate protection policies and beginning in October 2oo6.Figure i presents a practices of city and county governments in Santa map showing the jurisdictions included in the Loma i Clara and San Mateo counties.Twenty-eight(28) Prieta Chapter and highlights the iq cities that have of the 37 jurisdictions in the two-county area(76% Cool Cities Teams(out of 37 cities in the Chapter's by number,go%by population)responded to the area).In addition to these teams,San Mateo 3o-question survey.This report presents results County also has a Cool Counties Team covering the of these questions and provides a snapshot of local unincorporated areas of the county. government planning and actions on greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions reductions.The goals of this Each Cool Cities/Counties Team encourages and report are to: supports local government to: i.Increase awareness of the state of climate action i. Commit to reducing GHG emissions throughout by local governments in our area; the community by adopting the U.S.Mayors Climate ProtectionAgreementi or the 2.Facilitate the exchange of best practices;and U.S.Cool Counties Climate Stabilization 4 3.Advocate for decisive action worthy of the Declaration . magnitude of the climate change challenge. 2. Create a"green ribbon task force”or other body of residents and/or city staff or elected leaders to develop recommendations " d a: avar for addressing emissions throughout the community. Cool Cities Campaign 3. Develop a municipal GHG emission inventory of emissions associated with government The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter,which includes operations. Santa Clara,San Mateo,and San Benito Counties, 4, Implement early high-impact actions to has made local action to reduce greenhouse gas reduce municipal and/or community-wide (GHG)emissions its number one priority.The emissions.For example:Green building Chapter has a broad-based Global Warming Program requirements for municipal and/or private with four initiatives to reduce local emissions.One buildings or incentives to reduce commute of these initiatives is the Cool Cities Campaign.The emissions. Cool Cities Campaign is a National Sierra Club' campaign working for local government action to 5. Establish a municipal GHG emission reduction reduce municipal and community-wide greenhouse target at least as stringent as the goals codified gas emissions by engaging teams of volunteers in by Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature each city.On July 16,2007,the Sierra Club's Cool through the California Global Warming Solutions Cities initiative was expanded to include a Cool Act of 2006"(AB 32)in September 2oo6. Counties effort to work for local action at the county PAGE 2 1 Aepot,on Cl iYn'fie Protevtion Policies - and Pre ccs iii .d 'Mate" 'and 1 1 : cuntec a t nsdktions . ,t W Figure 1: Cities with Cool Cities Teams in the Loma San F—d.. Prieta Chapter. Cities with teams are shown in red;cities without teams are shown in grey. O�S a �a L . SFO Ski F9f, an O HIIISU 6 ., �.�k#aliro Half Sae ,R6$PWR, g �+1�. F Mows Bay M"10 4"lr Pr'' 1„p „ vnl ��"1,,,Y ' ;'Patal�ba �y'G�uxafaiav �" �„Eaa ''[ ' r fanNE'. San Mateo �''Partala ..:,- •n County dpep .es sat..Klln f +sari# 1a Santa Clara �w,.r •_j Corea _ ACounty }I iAim elaa fan lose x 3 G Mcr€e' P SEfen6� 1..6°w r Sam cam county 6. Develop a Municipal Climate Action Plan to io. Implement the Climate Action Plan. achieve the emission reduction targets. Cool Cities/Counties teams work to build q. Evaluate a community-wide GHG emission partnerships with concerned community members inventory. and other existing organizations to show elected leaders and city staff the public support for action on 8. Establish a community-wide emission global warming.The creation of ig Cool Cities City reduction target at least as stringent as the Teams,the engagement of hundreds of volunteers, goals codified by the California Global Warming and the development of an extensive opt-in Global Solutions Act of 2oo6. Warming database of over 23oo names all.in one year q. Develop a Climate Action Plan to achieve the demonstrate public concern and support for local community-wide emission reduction targets. government action in the Silicon Valley Region. PAGE 3 1 1 J 1wT,,-)1"t or- 61 t,ttrl.e Pr,otecl1011 Policies Local Government Climate a n d Practices inSan Mateo and Action Survey 2008 Santa Clara CountyJurisdactions Local Government Climate space for local government representatives to highlight exemplary climate protection actions. Action purvey Aweb-based version of the questionnaire was The Loma Prieta Chapter's Cool Cities Core Team then created to facilitate responses and electronic committed to developing a snapshot of local climate analysis.We also asked a follow-up question on protection activities around the first anniversary municipal solar power capacity after the original of the March 2,007 start of the Chapter's Cool Cities questionnaires were received. Campaign.The Committee anticipated that the results of such a survey would help to accelerate Implementation of the Survey climate protection actions by local jurisdictions and The Loma Prieta Cool Cities Campaign distributed to educate residents about what climate protection the questionnaire in late February and early March measures their cities and counties have undertaken. of 2008 to the mayor,city manager.and/or other Development of Survey Instrument appropriate staff person in the 35 cities within Santa Clara and San Mateo counties and to a county The starting point of our questionnaire was the supervisor and/or county staff person in each of the "Survey on Mayoral Leadership and City Efforts in two counties. In cities with Cool Cities Teams,teams Climate Protection"conducted nationwide inApril generally presented a hardcopy of the questionnaire 2007 by the U.S.Conference of Mayors.The U.S. along with a cover letter in person during a Conference of Mayors sent this questionnaire to all meeting. In the cities without Cool Cities Teams.the signatories of the U.S.Mayors Climate Protection questionnaire and a cover letter were sent via a-mail Agreement and presented the findings in a report to the mayor and city manager.After a couple weeks, entitled"Survey on Mayoral Leadership on Climate a Cool Cities City Team volunteer or other volunteer 6 Protection'issued in summer 2007 .The Cool Cities followed-up by phone or e-mail to encourage Core Team noted from this report a striking lack participation in the survey.In all,26 cities and both of response by local mayors—only four responded. counties responded(for a total of 28 respondents), Given this lack of response,the extensive network representing more than Z5%of jurisdictions to of engaged Cool Cities Teams and volunteers in our Whom the survey was administered.The responding Chapter's area who could assist with increasing the jurisdictions represent go%of the population of the response rate,and the extensive climate protection two counties.The jurisdictions that responded are developments in our area since April 2007,the Cool listed on the left side of Table i. Cities Core Team elected to use the earlier survey by This report presents the responses from each city the U.S.Conference of Mayors as a starting point. and county to the multiple-choice questions of the Chapter volunteers and staff with local policy survey and also highlights exemplary leadership expertise modified and updated the questionnaire by particular cities and/or counties.A preview to account for unique features of climate protection edition of this report was issued on July 7,2oo8 in our state and region,to more fully assess progress and distributed to all responding jurisdictions on the key milestones of the Cool Cities Campaign for feedback,corrections,and/or updates to the (listed above),and to explore the growing activity presented information.This final edition of our in the green building arena.The questionnaire report incorporates these comments,additional consisted of 3o questions of which 29 were multiple background information,and results on solar choice or very short answer write-in questions. power." One additional short answer question provided PAGE 4 P 1 i X M ri't;on—`,' ate feet on Polaez�e� - and iyic t%''es i,7 San Mateo end 1.1 : Saa l Clara ' untyfurisdi i T4 L aca +C tmate h, Recognizing the need for action,in June of 2005 77 Governor Schwarzenegger established aggressive .. goals for reducing GHG emissions in California— The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, calling for a reduction to 2000 levels by 2010,to the leading body on climate change research 1990 levels by 2020,and to 8o%below 1990 levels comprised of a network of more than 2,000 by 2050".To codify the Governor's greenhouse scientists,concludes in its most recent report gas emissions reduction goals,in September 2006 tGovernor Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill(AB that there is"...very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities 32),The California Global Warming Solutions Act of since 1750 has been one of warming".The current 2006'',authored by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. concentration of carbon dioxide(the most This legislation represents the first enforceable important greenhouse gas introduced by human statewide program in the U.S.to cap all GHG activity)has increased to levels far higher than emissions from major industries. at any time since humans started walking on the In 2005,the Governor also called for the California Earth.These high concentrations are mainly the Environmental Protection Agency(CaIEPA)to result of the accumulation of the carbon dioxide prepare biennial reports on the potential impact released during the combustion of fossil fuel(coal, of continued global warming on the California oil,natural gas)since the start of the Industrial economy.CalEPA established the California Climate Revolution in the 17oos.As a country,we in the U.S. Change Center to lead this effort.In July of 2006, bear a great burden of responsibility,contributing they released their first report entitled Our Changing one-quarter of the world's GHG emissions and more Climate 12.The report forecasts the following than twice the per capita emissions of the next- challenges in California resulting from climate greatest emitter.California alone is the fifteenth change: largest emitter of GHGs in the world. Most experts window-- one to two More air pollution and a greater number of heat agree that we have a short. decades--in which to act before the most severe days threatening public health; impacts are felt.Since about 85%of the U.S's energy and the World's energy is derived from fossil Reduced Sierra snowpack restricting our water fuels 10resources,hydropower-dependent electricity ,virtually all organizations and individuals contribute to emissions of carbon dioxide,the most supply,and winter recreation; important GHG.In addition,other GHGs such as Interacting stresses on agriculture leading methane are produced from waste stored in landfills to reductions in quality and quantity,and and other sources associated with human activity. ultimately increased agricultural prices; As a result,action to reduce GHG emissions is needed by everyone and every type of organization- Increased frequency of large wildfires and --individuals,businesses,federal,state,and associated health,ecosystem,and property local government. In the case of government at all damage; levels,not only can direct measures be taken to Rising seal levels impacting our coastal zones, reduce GHG emissions associated with government our infrastructure and Bay Area real estate. operations and staff commutes,but well crafted public policies can encourage and/or require The need for concerted international action on community-wide emissions reductions. global warming was recognized in March 1994 with the establishment of the United Nations Framework PAGE s Cool A Report on Climate Protection Policies GovernmentLocal and Practices in San Mateo and Action Survey 2008 , Clara CountyJurisdictions Convention on Climate Change13(UNFCCC),whichE'1221SS'IQt1S U was ratified by 192 nations.The UNFCCC initiated Local a process,culminating in the negotiation of the Greenhouse Gases Kyoto Protocol which required signatory nations of To properly craft government policy and local the developed world to reduce GHG emissions on action initiatives,understanding the sources of average by 5%below 1990 levels by zoiz•The Kyoto GHG emissions associated with local activity is Protocol entered into force on February 16,2005. important.The Bay Area Air Quality Management One hundred and eighty(1 8o)nations have ratified District(BAAQMD)conducted an inventory of the treaty to date.The U.S.is not among them. the GHG emissions in the counties surrounding Concerned by the lack of action at the federal San Francisco Bay using data from 200214. Figure level and recognizing the need for local action.to 2 presents the relative contributions of different address global warming,Mayor Greg Nickels of sources of direct GHG emissions within the Seattle created the U.S.Mayors Climate Protection District's boundaries and also includes indirect Agreement (MCPA)on the day the Kyoto Protocol emissions associated with emissions from electricity became international law.The MCPA called on cities imported from outside of our region.The two largest to commit to taking action to reduce GHG emissions sources of GHG emissions are carbon dioxide and to strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol's emissions from transportation and emissions from emissions reduction target for the U.S.of a 7% electricity generation and natural gas combustion reduction below i 99 levels by 2oi2.The MCPAwas to service homes and other buildings.According to adopted by the U.S.Conference of Mayors.As of this the California Air Resources Board,the electricity, writing,more than 850 cities have already signed natural gas,and water used in buildings accounts for the MCPA.Of these,23 cities are right here in Santa one quarter of all California GHG emissions14. Clara and San Mateo Counties. Bunt Leaders from King County,Washington,Fairfax vironment County Virginia,and the Sierra Club created a similar commitment vehicle for counties—the U.S. Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Declaration —and launched a Cool Counties initiative on July 16, 2007 at the National Association of Counties Annual Conference.Among other provisions,signers of the Cool Counties Declaration agree to strive to stop increasing emissions by zoio,to achieve a io%reduction every 5 years thereafter through to 2050,and to reduce emissions 8o%u below current levels by 2050.These targets reflect the scientific understanding that major reductions in emissions are needed by 2050 in order to reduce the likelihood Figure 2: San Francisco Bay Area greenhouse gas emissions by source category. Data is from Source of major climate change.Itis worth noting that Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions compiled these goals on average represent modest annual by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District using data reductions in GHG emissions of 2%u per year, from 2002.Emissions associated with production of imported electricity are included in the figure. PAGE 6 Cool Cities Local 1 „ s Action Survey 2008 Municipal(2%) wase Disposal (3%) promulgating policies impacting the two major sources of emissions:transportation and buildings. Figure 4 presents the municipal emissions inventory for operations and facilities of San Mateo city government'6.Emissions associated with electricity consumption and natural gas use in the built environment represent the largest source of municipal emissions.Interestingly,emissions Transpcirtation, ( °lc) associated with employee commutes and with the y city's vehicle fleet are approximately equal. By developing policies that spur efficiency in the transport and building sectors,local governments in and around Silicon Valley can also help to foster local innovation in energy efficiency,renewable energy, Figure 3: Community-wide GHG emissions and information technologies.Given our region's inventory for city of San Mateo by source category. historic leadership role and world impact in the area Data is from City of San Mateo Greenhouse Gas Emissions of technology,local innovation in our region can be Inventory Report,October 24,2007. leveraged to help local jurisdictions throughout the country and the world reduce their contribution to Figure 3 presents an example of a community-wide GHG emissions. GHG emissions inventory by source using data from the city of San Mateoib.Similar to the BAAQMD inventory,the largest single source of emissions is carbon dioxide released by combustion of fuels in the transportation sector.The second largest islrosai source of emissions is electricity use and natural gas combustion associated principally with buildings. Methane emissions associated with waste disposal make a small contribution of a few percent. >:uel An important point to note is that emissions associated with local government operations and facilities account for only a few percent of community-wide emissions.Direct action by local governments to control emissions associated with their activities is an essential first step, Figure 4: Municipal GHG emissions inventory demonstrating leadership and introducing new for city of San Mateo government operations and technologies and practices to the community. facilities. Data is from City ofSan Mateo Greenhouse Gas However,significantly lowering a community's Emissions Inventory Report,October 24,2007. GHG footprint requires addressing community- wide emissions.Local.governments can begin by PAGE 7 Cool SurveyLocal Government Climate Action 11 : Climatectl Commitment 4 Mile tones �• uct�4n i. The county commits to taking an inventory of _ltssror><s k Commitments' GHGs emitted by county government operations. 2. The county will work with all levels of An important first step by local government is to government and other leaders to reduce county- make a commitment to reducing GHG emissions. wide emissions to 8o%below current levels by Although municipal government emissions are 205o by developing a GHG emissions inventory, typically only a few percent of the total emissions establishing intermediate emissions reduction of a community(see Figure 3),by taking action to targets,and establishing a climate action plan for reduce their own emissions,cities and counties lead achieving the targets. by example and demonstrate paths for successful climate action;the importance of such an example 3. The county will urge Congress and the should not be underestimated.In addition,local Administration to act to reduce GHG emissions government can adopt policies,programs,and through the adoption of appropriate nationwide incentives which lead to reductions in emissions policies. throughout the community where the vast majority of the global warming impact of a community is 4� The county will take immediate steps to identify represented. climate change impacts and draft and implement a plan to prepare for those impacts. An important and widely recognized vehicle for cities to make an emissions reduction commitment It is important to note that both the MCPA and the is the U.S.Mayors Climate Protection Agreement Cool Counties declaration express a commitment to reducing not only emissions from local government (MCPA)(see earlier discussion).By signing the MCPA3: operations,but also express a commitment to creating programs and policies that will lead to 1. The mayor declares that global warming and reductions in city-or county-wide emissions,thus climate change is an important issue in need of addressing all the emissions from a jurisdiction. action and that action is needed at all levels of Cool Cities and Cool Counties Teams'first objective government. is to get their local government to sign onto these documents. !z. The mayor commits the city to reduce GHG emissions from both city operation and the Figure 5 shows that both counties have signed the community as whole. Cool Counties declaration and 23 cities of the 35 (65%)in these two counties have signed the MCPA. 3. The mayor agrees to strive to meet or beat the Every city in Santa Clara County,with the exception Kyoto Protocol targets for the U.S.:7%below of three,have signed the MCPA,while slightly less 1990 emissions by 2oi2. than half of the cities in San Mateo County have The equivalent commitment vehicle for counties signed the MCPA.To illustrate the rapidly growing is the U.S.Cool Counties Climate Stabilization engagement of local governments on GHG emission Declaration`.Briefly,the essential highlights of this reduction,Figure 6 illustrates the cities in Santa declaration are: Clara and San Mateo Counties that had signed by PAGE s Cool A report:on Ctim' aie Protection Poricics Local Government Climate and Practices its San Mateo and Action Survey 2008 &nta G'ara County furisdictions Ban frantlioD Figure 5: Loma Prieta Chapter signers of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement(MCPA)and the Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Agreement as of June 2008. Bright green areas correspond to cities that have signed the MCPA.Grey areas indicate cities in the Chapter's area that have not signed the MCPA. Light green areas correspond to counties that have signed the Cool Counties agreement.Areas in white are those outside the Chapter's area. Mii(xtir Sacs Mateo County a Coot Counties tC n Loma Prreta chapter area s re ,E�,• C40"that have not sia d'.. the MCPA Santa Cruz otdafde 1 thapfer can frYiGKo Figure G: Loma Prieta Chapter signers of the MCPA at the start of the Chapter's Cool Cities Campaign in November 2006 Color key is described in figure 5. � ro a� SYTs �:�\ a Cool Couniias s r� m Loma Prieta . ` aanao>aa+ chapter area Sante Cna `+ •-.� Outside of County z -u+ Loma P(tela '�z � chapter area PACE 9 TIT " � e Protech©n Pr t cies 1 / :'dhd Prdctices ars Sari „arid 1,1 ► "g - Paracounty Jr November 2oo6,which is when the Loma Prieta "Green ribbon task force" Chapter's Cool Cities Campaign began. During the paid consultant 19 month period that elapsed between these two ICLEl contractor maps,eighteen cities and two counties committed to ! City .staff climate protection on a community-wide basis. Other Another vehicle for local governments(as well Atherton as other institutions)in our region to commit to €3el,vont reducing GHG emissions is to become a partner in Brisbane the nonprofit Sustainable Silicon Valley(SSV) S u rl i n y a na e Eachartner can choose its own emissions P Garnfabeit reduction target and commit to reducing emissions Cupertino from its operations by this amount and to reporting Foster City annually on its emissions.The overall goal of SSV Gilroy is to reduce the Silicon Valley's regional emissions Twos Altos by 2o%below 19go levels by 2010. SSV provides Los Altos Hills an excellent forum for obtaining commitments to Los Gatos y reduce emissions,quantifying emissions reduction Menlo park and exchanging best practices among government Milpitas j and institutional partners.Note,however,that Monte Sereno Kim when a local government commits to participate in Morgan hill ~e SSV it commits to reducing GHG emissions from Mountain View its municipal government operations;the local Pacifica government is not committing to reducing city-wide Palo Alto or county-wide emissions. Redwood City San Brune „ San dosMEMOM e is01 San Mateo (city) San Mateo County An important first step in the implementation Santa Clara (city) 11 of the MCPA or Cool Counties Declaration is to Santa Clara County allocate or engage human resources to assist with , Soy.€tt1 San Francisco a . planning and implementation of an emissions Sunnyvaleo MSN/ gg Y or county reduction commitment.Assigning cit °"a tY Woodside staff,hiring consultants,and/or forming"green ribbon task forces"of community members are all ways for cities to begin the process of implementing Figure 7: Participants engaged by cities and the GHG emissions reduction commitment. counties in the climate action planning process. Color bars correspond to different categories of participants These participants can take on various important included in the response options for this question.Results are roles such as evaluation of emissions inventories, presented for each responding jurisdiction, assessment of emissions reduction target options, and evaluation of elements of a Climate Action Plan to achieve reduction targets. PAGE iii Local Government Climate Cool Cities plot Action Survey 2008 Figure 7 shows the following results on participant -Completed Expected by end of 2008 engagement: MCPA ICool Countl-r:; a • Multiple participants have been engaged in signings the climate action commitment andlannin P g Multiple Participant79% process by the vast majority of the responding Engagement jurisdictions(22 or 79%). • Staff time for work on climate protection Municipal Emission 25% sa«o l P Inventories actions has been allocated by 22 (79%)of the Municipal Reduction 2t responding jurisdictions. Targets • ICLEI,which is a nonprofit that provides Municipal Climate 14% (s7 x) assistance with evaluation of emissions Action Plans inventories,reduction targets and development of Climate Action Plans",has been engaged Community-Wide 36% (64%) by 20 jurisdictions(71%)to assist with Emission Inventories implementation of emission reduction Community-wide 14% Reduction Targets commitments. Climate Action Pians 7% (32%) • "Green ribbon task forces"of community ---— members have been formed by;2 jurisdictions o 20 ao 60 so 100 (43%) Percentage of Responding Jurisdictions(°6) These results are encouragi ig as the,show Figure 8:Climate action commitment and planning the vast majority of jui isdietions ai–e cngaginy milestones achieved by the responding jurisdictions. multiple participants to assist with the Figure presents the percentage of jurisdictions that have (i)signed the U.S.Mayors Climate Protection Agreement implementation of their commitments and (MCPA)or U.S.Cool Counties Stabilization Declaration therefore taki ng important steps toward (Cool Counties Declaration),(ii.)Engaged multiple Itialdlawthis commitment a reality. participants such as city staff,consultants,and community members to assist with climate action planning,(iii) Completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions associated Figure 8 summarizes the aggregate results with local government operations and facilities,(iv)Adopted pertaining to climate action commitment and municipal GHG emission reduction targets,(v)Adopted planning milestones.For example,this figure a Municipal Climate Action Plan to achieve the emission reduction targets,(vi)Completed a community-wide baseline shows that 75%of the responding jurisdictions emission inventory,(vii)Adopted a community-wide emission have either signed the MCPA or the Cool Counties reduction target,(viii)Adopted a community-wide Climate Declaration.The large percentage(Z9%)of Action Plan to reduce emissions from the baseline levels to responding jurisdictions that have engaged multiple the established reduction targets.Responses indicating that participants in the climate action commitment milestone will be completed by the end of 2008 are also indicated. and planning process is illustrated for comparison as well.Individual results for each.responding jurisdiction are presented in Table i. PAGE it 1 i A Report imate Protection Policies x and Prs in san'Mateo and � iWa Mara Crurisditon n A& ' iadopted an MCAD or if they plan to do so in 2oo8. U '111 a n� s"S'l n Key results can be seen in figure 8: ReductiOn.P at>tn ng Municipal Climate Action Plans have been To reduce GHG emissions associated with local developed by only four jurisdictions(14%)—San government operations,jurisdictions need suitable Mateo,Palo Alto,San)ose,Sunnyvale 157%by baseline emission data,an emissions reduction end of zoo8]. target,and a plan for achieving this target.The first step is for the jurisdiction to complete an inventory of GHG emissions associated with its Exemplary Leaders:fan Mateo, Pala operations and facilities from electricity use,natural Alto Sau Jose and Sunnyvale have gas use,fleet vehicles,and other sources.Such an inventory involves a detailed assessment and review all completed key milestones in reducing of emissions associated with the jurisdiction's CHC emissions associated with muni""cipaI operations and facilities. Recall that figure 4 shows otrei'rtm n�t:.c6mpletion of baseline inventories, the results of such an inventory for the city of San Mateo.Our survey asked jurisdictions if they have ixlalish ei t of reduction targets,and " inventoried emissions or if they plan to do so by doptipri f Municipal ClimateAetion eta s the end of 2oo8.Figure 8 shows the following key ° results: Municipal emission inventories have been ", : _ io SS ' completed by seven(25%)of the responding • jurisdictions[93%by the end of 2oo8] Another key step in reducing emissions from Since municipal operations account for only government operations is establishing an emission a few percent of the GHG emissions from a reduction target.With a baseline emissions typical jurisdiction(see Figure 3,for example), inventory and reduction targets,a jurisdiction has a it is essential that cities and counties develop quantitative basis for managing the carbon footprint Policies and programs to reduce community-wide associated with its operations.Figure 8 also emissions.An important first step to developing presents the aggregate results for jurisdictions that such a plan is to develop an inventory of GHG have set municipal emission reduction targets. emissions within the jurisdiction as a whole. Municipal emission reduction targets have been • Community-wide GHG emission inventories have established by 6 jurisdictions(21%). been completed by io(36%)of the responding jurisdictions[64%by end of 2oo8]. To achieve the GHG emission reduction goals starting from the baseline emissions inventory,a This number is somewhat higher than the number plan of action—a Municipal Climate Action Plan of jurisdictions reporting completion of a municipal (MCAP)—needs to be developed by a jurisdiction. inventory possibly because acommunity-wide This action plan identifies the approach that will be inventory is often somewhat more straightforward used to reduce GHG emissions from city or county to complete.This results from the fact that a first operations.In our Cool Cities survey,we asked community-wide assessment provides a coarse jurisdictions if they have already developed and picture by sector(buildings,transportation. PAGE 12 1 1 A epbrt on bimate Protection Policies - and Practices in*Mateo and 1 1 : $arta Clara `bunty furtsd`ci tions etc.)and data from utilities and other sources Exemplary Leadem P IaAltoa and are organized in a manner that makes such a San Mateo boat,have shown exceptional community-wide assessment more straightforward. In contrast,a detailed evaluation of the emissions leazersb`i bcblt'vitgtzll tnttjortt2ilestates associated with the many operations of a local �fttr both mtiM sipal and community-wide GHG overnment re uires finer scale data and more ` g q ero7sstcrns< ;%rtes:ccs leh of br;r sWine analysis. i-veiitories,e'stablishrnent of reduction,targets, Table2 presents the community-wide emission and adoption of Climate Action flans. reduction targets set by the four responding jurisdictions(14%)that have set a target. The results in this section reveal that local TABLE 2: Community-Wide Emission governments in San Mateo and Santa Clara Reduction Targets Counties show rapidly g-rowing engagement on climate protection.However,achievement Coniniunity-Wide Emission ofessential milestones toward emission jurisdiction ReductionTarget reduction is still,,gencrally lagg ngand not WE ,ttruss tins less'than 2006consistent with Silicon v rl lee's historic baseline leader�sh ip role in other et e as.`I`he high level AllSanMateo * Exceed 24Aate target ci# ol`completed rrrrmicipal emission inventorics (city)" emissions @ 1990 levels e pe.ctccl 1pv the end o1`2oa3 as well as the Meet state target of 80%below exI)ected corrcplction of cotrin'nznity-witic 1920 by 2050 inventories by ne arlytwh thirds ofthe Cool Counties Declaration jurisdictions is encouraging. Targets: • Stop increasing by 2010; An organized systematic effort to quantify and San Mateo . 10% reduction ever fiveears County every Y reduce GHG emissions involves all of the above thereafter milestones. However,many jurisdictions have • 80%below current levels by already taken or will soon take specific actions 2050 that reduce GHG emissions even in the absence of Palo Alto 15%reduction by 2020 achieving some or all of these planning milestones. Sunnyvale 7%below 1990 levels by 2012 In the following sections,we report on survey responses regarding actions that have already been taken or will soon be taken to reduce GHG To achieve these community-wide emission emissions. reductions,a Climate Action Plan(CAP)is needed. Figure 8 and Table i show the following results: • Community-wide Climate Action Plans(CAPs) have been developed and adopted by a mere two of the responding jurisdictions(7%)—Palo Alto and San Mateo[32% by the end of 20081. PAGE 13 s Completed:— Expected by end of 2008: (X) (,linurte Action:C,ammitneent C Plannin(r Afilestones Transportation Policy Municipal Community-Wide Municipal Community- Community- Procurement Municipal MCPA/Coot Multiple Municipal Municipal Climate Wide Wide Climate Policies Employee Tr Counties Participant Emission Reduction Action Emission Reduction Action Favoring Green Commute et Signings Engagement Inventories Targets Plans Inventories Targets Plans Fleets Incentives E SAN MATEO COUNTY Atherton (x) (X? (x) xJ ... ...._........ 1 11 Belmont (X) . ..... Brisbane.. (X) (X) (X) Burlingame �//��ii ;,; (X) ............. .... ......_. Foster City (x) (X) (X) (X) Menlo Park (X) (x)-- --......... -- Pacifica (X) (X). . ....... .............................. ... .......... .. Redwood City (X) __... San Bruno (X) (X) (X) ...... ..........— ---....--- San Mateo ........................._.....................----......... San Mateo County (X) (X) xj (X) .......-............................. ..... South San Francisco (X) ...... _....._ ..............._....._. ........._..._... ....... ... __ ..... Woodside (X) (X) (X) SANTA CLARA COUNTY Campbell (X) (x) Cupertino Gilroy _ Los Altos (X) i;111 _... __.._.... .. _.. .._Los Altos Hills (X) (X) (X) Los Gatos (X) (X) IFEW....... -_ Milpitas _ (X) Monte Sereno (X) (X) (X) — MornHi (X) %n --... -_ _ Mountain View (X) (X) Palo Alto (X) San Jose (x)_ Santa Clara (X) (X) (X) .............._—_...—.__......... --...._... ......._ - _.._... Santa Clara County (X) (X) (X) _. ....------....--- - Sunnyvale Table 1: Results by Responding Jurisdiction. municipal GHG emission reduction targets. "Municipal Climate Action Commiunent wid.Planning Milestones: "MPCA/Cool Plan": Adopted a Municipal Climate Action Plan to achieve the emission Counties Signings": Signed the U.S.Mayors Climate Protection Agreement reduction targets. "Community-Wide Emission Inventories": Completed a (MCPA)or U.S.Cool Counties Stabilization Declaration(Coot Counties community-wide baseline emission inventory. "Community-Wide Reduction Declaration). "Multiple Participant Engagement": Engaged multiple Targets":Adopted a community-wide emission reduction target. "Climate participants such as city staff,consultants,and community members to assist Action Plans":Adopted a community-wide Climate Action Plan to reduce with climate action planning. "Municipal Emission Inventory": Completed emissions from the baseline levels to the established reduction targets. a baseline inventory of GHG emissions associated with local government Responses indicating that milestone will be completed by the end of 2008 operations and facilities. "Municipal Reduction Targets": Adopted are also indicated. Milestones Green Buileliny Incentives Rerfuire ment,� Municipal Commercial Residential •ansit-Oriented, Existing Existing Existing c.Development New Existing New Building New Building Building Building New Building New Building Building Existing Building :ncouragement Buildings Buildings Incentives Requirements Incentives Requirements Incentives Requirements Incentives Requirements --._..... .....-.. ....... ----- -.— ..... ----... . -------.....................__..............._ -..._........... _._................................ ............. tx) tX) (X) (X) -------- _ ........ ......................................._..... —._......_................ . ....--_._ ......... ........ _........._ ......... _..__.._............. _..._ ... ........ -- -- --- ..._. ....— _.._ ..____ .... ---... ....-- (X) (X% ............ ...... .......... ................................................. __................ . ... ......--- ..... V_ (X) (X) (X) (x) (x) (X) (X) (X) P(X) -(x�--. ... ._�x. .. _(X) (X) (x) (x)........__ (x) tX) (X) _..... (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (x) (x) (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) (x) (X) (X) (X) (X) -- ----.....--- ........_........_..................._-............. ....... . ......... ............ ........... (x} (x) (x) (x} (x) (x) (x) (x} (x) (x) Transportation Policy Milestones: "Procurement Policies Favoring Green Building Incentives&Requirements: New municipal Green Fleets":jurisdiction has policy favoring the purchase of alternative building and commercial building incentives and requirements are for those technology or alternative fuel vehicles("green vehicles"). "Municipal that meet LEED Silver certification,equivalent or better.Existing municipal Employee Commute Incentives": jurisdiction has incentives for municipal and commercial building incentives and requirements are for those employees to commute using modes other than single-occupancy vehicles. meeting LEED-EB Certified level,equivalent or better.New residential "Transit-Oriented,etc.Development Encouragement":jurisdiction states building incentives and requirements are for those buildings that meet it has policies that encourage transit-orientated or mixed-use development. BIG G reenPoint-Rated 50 points,equivalent or better.Finally,for existing residential structures,incentives and requirements are based on a minimum number of BIG Green Point-Rated points. Cool Local Government Climate Action Survey il : Climate Action: Transo'brtation Polic ones 00 J� Transportation comprises about 50%of total GHG from corn produces very little benefit in reducing emissions in our region and represents the largest net emissions of carbon dioxide 19. Alternative single source of emissions(see Figures!z&3). technology vehicles include hybrid-gas/electric or Although cities and counties cannot directly regulate all electric vehicles,for example. emissions from vehicles,they can craft policies Atherton and programs that reduce transportation emissions Belmont ---�— from local government operations and/or encourage Brisbane greater use of mass transit or other alternate forms Burlingame of transportation by residents and employees. Campbell Cupertino Municipal actions to reduce transportation-related Foster City GHG emissions range from upgrading their fleets Gilroy to more climate-friendly technologies,encouraging Los Altos alternative modes of transportation for their Los Altos Hills Los Gatos employees,and promoting transit-oriented or Menlo Park mixed-use development in the community. Milpitas �r^� .. .:..F •., f= Monte Sereno L unici a .,.;1 (3I1s Morgan Hill Mountain View Figure 4 shows that emissions associated with Pacifica vehicle fleets and employee commutes represent Palo Alto Redwood City a significant portion of overall emissions from San Bruno government operations and facilities.Hence San Jose one way to reduce transportation emissions is San Mateo (city) by purchasing vehicles that produce fewer or no San Mateo County — Santa Clara(city) GHG emissions per mile.Alternative fuel vehicles Santa Clara County include those running on compressed natural South San Francisco gas(CNG)and those running on biofuels.CNG Sunnyvale vehicles produce fewer emissions per mile through Woodside more efficient combustion of the simple methane 0% 20% 40% so% molecule in natural gas.Biofuels can reduce the net Percentage of Vehicle Fleet (%) emission of carbon dioxide since carbon dioxide was absorbed from the atmosphere by the plants that provided the materials for biofuels production,and Figure 9: Percentage of local government the combustion of the biofuel releases the carbon vehicle fleets powered by alternative fuels aneVor dioxide back into the atmosphere.Depending on technologies. Solid bars show percent ranges chosen by the responding jurisdictions.See text for details. the process used to produce the biofuel,the net release of CO2 into the atmosphere per mile of Figure 9 presents responses to our query on the vehicle travel can be much smaller than that from percentage of local government vehicle fleets combustion of gasoline. However,it is important powered by alternative fuel and/or alternative to note that production of the biofuel ethanol technology vehicles. PAGE l6 Cool LocalGovernment Actioni mm-.", • Seventeen jurisdictions(61%of the respondents)have fleets with i-2o% alternative Procurement vehicles. Policies o, Favoring Greer, 50 71%Uy eno of NUB) Vehicles • Six(21%)of the jurisdictions have 21-40%of their fleets made up of such vehicles. Municipal Although the vast majority of cities do not Employee 29% 61% Alternate I6 or more it or more currently have many alternative vehicles in their Commute Incentives) ennves) fleets,jurisdictions that have or soon will adopt Incentives procurement policies favoring the purchases of alternative vehicles could significantly reduce the Transit-Oriented or Mixed-Use 79% CO2 emissions of vehicle fleets in coming years. Development Encouragement Such policies can not only directly reduce emissions associated with municipal operations,but also LJ they can increase the market for development and o 20 I'llso so too production of such vehicles and,therefore,increase Percentage of Responding Jurisdictions(%) the selection and decrease the cost of these vehicles in the future. Figure 10: Transportation policy milestones achieved by responding jurisdictions.(i)Percentage Exemplary Leaders: Redwood City and ; with procurement policies favoring the purchase of alternative technology or alternative fuel vehicles("green vehicles"). Santa,Clara hossh0une.rc(Tti01101leaderslttp'' (ii,)Percentage with incentives for municipal employees to ��ttttcl.itllin� ��`limn.d��s '�ltj'hrt-e�stir2tll€iia commute using modes other than single-occupancyvehicles. (iii.)Percentage stating they have policies that encourage setlrtn leets. respectin'ly transit-orientated or mixed-use development. Figure io displays the responses to our question on Local governments can also have an impact on whether jurisdictions currently have procurement emissions associated with their operations by policies that favor the purchase of alternative fuel offering incentives for employees to switch from or technology vehicles.Results for individual driving to work alone in a car to some alternative jurisdictions are presented in Table 1. means of transportation that reduces CO2 emissions • Policies favoring acquisition of alternative fuel per person.In the case of San Mateo(see Figure or alternate technology vehicles are reported by 4),emissions associated with employee commutes 14 jurisdictions(50%) [71%expect to have such account for almost the same level of emissions as policies in place by the end of 2oo81. the city's vehicle fleet. Therefore,we asked local governments whether they offer incentives for employees to use any of the following alternatives to Our results show that preen vehicles are slowly single-occupancy vehicles:public transportation, becoming:part of many local l;overnment carpools.vanpools or car-sharing,a bicycle or walk fleets but rapid increases are likely soon to work,and/or other alternative transportation. as many jurisdictions adopt procurement Figure i i presents the responses to this question for policies favoring such purchases, each jurisdiction,and Figure io presents the results in aggregate form. PAGE 17 Cool Mn ion Fci�ieies Local Government Climate Action Survey 2008 u ara tc ity f%ir isdie I Public transportation incentives for employees More,jnrisdietions need to offer multiple Carpool incentives for employees vanpool or car-sharing incentives for employees ineentivesforalter native committing Biking or walking incentives for employees methods and provide a model for the private- Other alternative transportation incentives sector to address the Iarge contribution of the Atherton transportation sector. Belmont Brisbane FAentplary Leaders: Burlingame. Foster Burlingame Citi, Menlolo Park, Milpitas. Rt�rlvtoo C�itN Campbell Cupertino San Jose,San Mateo CountN.and Santa Foster City Clara C;«trnty° lia��c� ;lio��n cacel�i Mimi lroy Los Altos leadership by offering.1.or nnorc i�pcs Los Altos Hills of iuccritives for Los Gatos Menlo Park alternative commutes. Milpitas Monte Sereno Morgan Hili Community-wide Emissions Mountain View Pacifica Local government has authority over development Palo Alto or land-use decisions within the community and Redwood City this authority provides a powerful and effective San Bruno means of reducing single vehicle use.Smart land use San Jose San Mateo (city) planning,also known as"smart growth"is a critical San Mateo Countya F1 N; tool for cities and counties of all sizes to embrace to Santa Clara (city) accommodate population growth while at the same Santa Clara County time trying to drive down GHG emissions.Studies South San Francisco show that"people living in places with twice the Sunnyvale density,diversity of uses,accessible destinations Woodside and interconnected streets drive about a third less Figure 11: Municipal employee alternative than otherwise comparable residents of low-density commute incentives offered by responding spraw120. Furthermore,the energy associated with jurisdictions. Color bars correspond to different types of getting people to and from the average building incentives for municipal employees to commute to work not is typically around 3o%greater than energy using a single-occupancy vehicle.Incentives types correspond used for building operation.For newer more to the response options for this question. efficient buildings,the difference is even greater. These comparisons illustrate the importance of • One or more incentives are offered by rq(6<%) considering the relative locations of our housing, of the responding jurisdictions. offices,and retail spaces in addressing community • Eight jurisdictions(29%)stand out for GHG emissions. providing all of these incentives to employees— Since encouraging transit-oriented or mixed-use Burlingame,Foster City,Menlo Park,Milpitas, development can have an important impact on Redwood City,San Jose,San Mateo County,and transportation emissions within a community, Santa Clara County. PAGE 18 Cool Local Government Climate Action Survey 11 : jurisdictions were queried as to whether they to increase mass transit options and convenience for currently encourage transit-oriented development residents. or mixed-use development to reduce automobile use and encourage alternative transportation use. Combining vehicle miles traveled(VMT)with the average fuel economy of the vehicle fleet(mpg), Figure io shows that 22(Y9%)of the reporting GHG emissions associated with vehicle use can be jurisdictions currently encourage such development, and the specific jurisdictions are enumerated in roughly estimated but only very roughly at the scale Table i. of a city.As jurisdictions seek to measure the impacts of their policies to reduce GHG emissions from the As jurisdictions seek to implement the MCPA transportation sector in their jurisdictions,accurate or Cool Counties Declaration,the importance of city or county-specific data on VMT.or ideally,more GHG emissions associated with transportation will direct measures of GHG emissions from vehicles will necessitate multiple actions to reduce emissions be needed.State-level action—such as requiring from this source.Other types of actions might that annual car registrations include an odometer include funding or seeking funds for free community reading—could assist local jurisdictions. Such a shuttles,which would encourage residents to reduce requirement would facilitate collection of data on car use.Similarly,incentives for,or requirements annual miles traveled,vehicle make and hence miles on,employers to reduce employee commutes per gallon,and zip code information,which in turn, by single-occupancy vehicles may be helpful.In would enable an accurate determination of aggregate addition,municipal leaders need to engage with annual carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles regional and county public transportation authorities registered in a city or county. t rs ire yr. Buildings represent 39%percent of GHG emissions as siting within easy access to public transit 29 in the U.S.21.Over the next 25 years,these emissions Therefore,such buildings reduce GHG emissions are projected to increase faster than any other associated with the construction and use of the sector's emissions.So the practice of green building, building. and policies that support it,are a critical and urgent piece of a broader strategy to reduce our global Local jurisdictions that encourage green building warming emissions. generally rely on two voluntary certification systems that can be used to assess how"green"a building Green building applies a"whole systems"approach project is.The U.S.Green Building Council to the design,construction and operation of (USGBC)Leadership in Energy and Environmental buildings.Those who build"green'consider Design(LEED)Green Building Rating SystemTM is (i)efficient and responsible use of the building generally considered the benchmark for commercial site,such as the site's natural characteristics and green building? . Under the LEED ratings system, appropriate landscaping,(2)efficient resource building projects meeting certain prerequisites use-using materials,energy and water wisely, and performance benchmarks may earn credits (3)high quality indoor air by selecting materials toward certification.Based on the score attained, lower in chemicals or the installation of mechanical projects may be awarded Certified,Silver.Gold,or ventilation,and(4) community issues,such Platinum certification. For residential buildings, PAGE i9 Cool por 'oiiriiE Protection Policies Local Government Climate an Mtteo and WOO Action Survey 2008 Scrota Dara � un , Jurisdictions Build It Green's(BIG)GreenPoint Rated verification _Current policy Expect by end of 2008 system is becoming the regional standard,with Municivat support from the Home Builders Association of New I, go I� 32% (46%) Northern California and the Association of Bay Area Governments 24.Further,the Home Builders Existing 21% (32%) Association will promote mandatory green building Buildings standards based on GreenPoint Rated in all iof Commerlciaf cities and counties in the Ba Area. A GreenPoint New Buildings: Bay Incentives 18% (86%) rating of 50 points is being promoted by BIG as a minimum standard for a green building. New Buildings: 7% 29%)Requirements Since the LEED and GreenPoint Rated systems are Existing accepted systems for evaluating green buildings.we Buildings: 4% 29%) Incentives surveyed jurisdictions on their policies to encourage ...................................... Existing or require LEED Silver Certification,equivalent, Buildings: 18%) Requirements or better for new municipal and commercial buildings.For new residential structures,we asked Residential if they encourage or require BIG GreenPoint-Rated New Buildings: 110„ {36>) Incentives 50 points,equivalent,or better for residential buildings. New irements 70� (366) Akey challenge of addressing GHG emissions Existing Buiid6tgo: 41% associated with the building sector is that the vast majority of buildings are existing structures. Existing Buildings: 7% (25%) Opportunities to address this challenge occur,for Requirements example,when major renovations or remodels occur,when a building is sold,or by providing 0 20 40 60 eo Percentage of Responding Jurisdictions(%) attractive financing for green building upgrades.The USGBC has created LEED-EB certification levels for existing buildings. Recognizing the importance of Figure 12: Green building incentives er requirements for the responding jurisdictions.Each the existing building stock,we asked the cities and stacked bar presents the percentage of jurisdictions with the counties if they encourage and/or require LEED- following policies either currently in place or expected by the EB certification,equivalent,or better at the time of end of 2008.New municipal building and commercial building major renovations or remodels of existing municipal incentives and requirements are for those that meet LEED or commercial buildings.For existing residential Silver certification,equivalent or better.Existing municipal structures,we asked if incentives or requirements and commercial building incentives and requirements are for those meeting LEED-EB Certified level,equivalent or better. exist for a minimum number of BIG GreenPoint- New residential building incentives and requirements are for Rated points. those buildings that meet BIG GreenPoint-Rated 50 points, equivalent or better.Finally,for existing residential structures, Figure> presents aggregate results from our green incentives and requirements are based on a minimum number building questions,and Table 1 presents results for of BIG GreenPoint-Rated points. individual jurisdictions. PAGE 20 ys 0 IA Cool Cities Local Government XPi tztt GETZ; teo'(ai� ��� Action 1.1 : sdic x #` moldings Cc>rmmeareial and Residential LEED Silver Certifications,equivalent, AN y or better for new municipal buildings are Key results on new privately-ownedbuildings: currently required in 9(32%)of the responding jurisdictions 146%by the end of 2oo8]. Incentives for LEED Silver Certified,equivalent, • Adoption of LEED-EB certification or better for new commercial buildings currently requirements for existing buildings undergoing exist in 5 jurisdictions(18%) [36%by the end major renovations is still low(21%or 6 of 2oo8]. jurisdictions)but essential for reducing Requirements for LEED Silver Certified. GHG emissions as most buildings fall into equivalent,or better for new commercial this category[32%expect to adopt such buildings currently exist in 2 jurisdictions(z%) requirements by end of 2oo8]. [29%by the end of 2oo8] Local governments are increasingly adopting Incentives for new residences to achieve Build significant green building standards for their It Green 5o point ratings,equivalent,or better buildings but more effort is needed to spur exist in 3 jurisdictions(11%) [36%by the end of green renovations in existing;buildings 2oo8] Further action may be spurred by existing efforts by Requirements for new residences to achieve city and county associations.The Santa Clara County Build It Green 50 point ratings,equivalent.or Cities Association(SCCCA)has adopted a green better exist in 2 jurisdictions(7%) [36%by the building policy for municipal buildings in the cities end of 2oo8] in its purview.SCCCA recommends that cities in the region lead by example,by adopting the LEED Silver Exrrnftlary Leaders:Brisbane o n-d.Pacifica threshold for new municipal buildings25, jr ave both,shotvn e,i ceptiona-1 leadershi p b} E.��mplai}'Leaders: Spur Mateo, Campbell, I l l'U� i,lvercrrtifi-ed, equivalent. Cupertino,Los Gatos, Mor in li ll, orIretter fn1 11 f11 COW rnr"F'eial bijildings. San anti San Jose lirl 'e'all sllo LV1! Mateo County aa2d Los Altos have also shotrri leadership lry rldoptin(;policies to regrare LL'I'1) exceptional leadership 1} requiri,ngBuild I Silverrerti.Jied. equinil,,w, o-lwiter f'ornew equi.va-lent, orbetter.161° municipal biuldingrs onrl to rcgoin, TIED EB. neu,residences" equivalent,or bettet' or rrzu jor-rex,oti(ztions of cristinl)'nrtin iripolImildinas`, Therefore,our surrey results stow progress on encouraging or requiring new privately-o-%mcd buildings to meet significant o een building standards is currently still weal.. However,the large increase in the percentage of jurisdictions expecting to have incentives or requirements bythe enol of 2oo8 is good hews. The overall trend toward high-,bar green building standards for new commercial and residential buildings is somewhat encouraging although the absolute percentages by the end of 2oo8 will still be relatively small. PAGE 21 Cool A depart on Climate.Protection PolzcI 0 II d Action Survey 1•i : Sall'taf-. M Key results on existing privately-owned buildings: Exempla r.V Leaders: ',.in Bruno, San Vateo • Only one city(4%)—San Bruno—encourages Colaity. a m i Los Altos h(i nc mlopt.edpoliti.s LEED EB or equivalent for commercial buildings tog f ri (29%expect to do so by end of 2oo8) building star d aids fior major renoi�ation:s or • No jurisdiction currently requires LEED EB 'remodels ofexistirt,g pricatelr-owned buildings. or equivalent for commercial buildings(18% expect to do so by end of 2oo8) Our results indicate that the challenge of • Only one jurisdiction(4%)—San Mateo County encouraging or requiring existing buildings —provides incentives for a minimum number of to meetsilniificant green building standards BIG points for existing residences(29%expect after major renovations or remodels is not to do so by end of 2oo8) being met.Addressing this challenge is • Two jurisdictions(7%)—San Mateo County and essential since so mucli of our building energy Los Altos—require a minimum number of BIG use and loss comes from existing buildings. points for existing residences(25%expect to do so by end of 2008) Note added at press time:Since this survey was completed,the City of Palo Alto has adopted a new green building ordinance.Palo Alto's green building requirements apply to new commercial and residential structures(including multi-family)and those undergoing major renovation;the certification requirements meet or exceed those reported here for other jurisdictions.26 Sol "' owe Clean energy technologies which do not result in At present Federal and State tax incentives and emission of GHGs are an essential component of any rebates are needed to make solar photovoltaic(PV) strategy to reduce GHG emissions locally as well as technologies cost competitive with the current globally.As the world's economies and population major sources of electricity based on fossil fuels'-9 . grow,energy demands will rise dramatically and However the costs of solar PV are decreasing energy efficiency and conservation measures—such through production changes and through gradually as those discussed in previous sections—alone growing economies of scale. Local governments can cannot meet this rising need2'. Solar energy facilitate the adoption of solar PV technologies in provides an abundant clean energy source of significant ways.First,they can lead by example by sufficient magnitude to meet projected world energy modeling the deployment of solar PV on government demands.In fact,using existing solar photovoltaic buildings.Moreover,the cumulative impact of technology all of the U.S:s energy needs could be purchases by local governments can increase the met with a solar photovoltaic array spanning 25o km demand for solar PV systems and bring down costs. x 25o km in the Arizona desert28. Furthermore,broad adoption of solar PV systems PAGE 22 LocalCool Cities Government Action presents a significant and growing opportunity for Los altos Hills local clean technology companies which will benefit Mountain from increased demand for solar systems. view Local governments can directly extend the impact Pacifica aso kw to the community by adopting policies that reduce the local costs associated with the installation of san Jose iso kw solar PV systems. For example,almost all cities and San Mateo County counties charge a solar permit fee to install solar PV systems.By reducing or eliminating these fees,local government can have a notable impact on lowering solar PV costs.In addition,other aspects of the o so 100 iso zoo zso aoo aso aoo permitting of solar systems by local jurisdictions can Peak Power Output (kilowatts) introduce delays that lead to increased labor costs. Figure 13:Municipal solar powergeneration capacity of local governments in San Mateo and Municipal Solar Power p Santa Clara Counties. Total peak power generation Generation Capacity capacity of solar photovoltaic(PV)systems on local government facilities is displayed for the responding We queried the responding jurisdictions to jurisdictions that have such capacity.Unlisted responding determine the total peak solar power generation jurisdictions reported no solar power generation capacity. capacity of installed solar PV systems on municipal government buildings and other facilities.By asking Palo Alto has installed solar arrays as technology for the peak power capacity of the systems we can demonstration projects properly inter-compare the systems. Exenxplary Leaders: Pacifica, San Mateo Figure 13 shows these results for the responding ' jurisdictions that have solar power generation County,and San Jose have shown.exceptional capacity. leadership by installing solar photovoltaic • Solar power generation capacity for government systems with power capacities exceeding zoo operations is reported by only 6(21%)of the kW for municipal>electric ty needs. responding jurisdictions • Solar power generation capacity over loo Steps Taken t0 Facilitate kW is reported by only 3 of the responding Installation of Solar Power in jurisdictions(ii%) the Community In addition,several jurisdictions reported We surveyed the jurisdictions on which,if any, noteworthy developments relating to municipal of the following steps have been taken to reduce solar power: barriers to solar power in the community:Reduced • Menlo Park is proposing a 35-5o kW system. or eliminated solar permit fees; Expedited solar permitting;Promoted alternative financing for solar • Morgan Hill has approved a 15 kW system which (e.g.solar co-ops,Power Purchase agreements, will be installed by the end of the year. special financing districts). Figure 14 presents the responses to this question.Key results are: PAGE 23 Cool A Report on Climate Protection Policies GovernmentLocal and Practices in San Mateo and Action Survey 2008 Santa Clara CountyJurisdicti.ons Permit fees have been reduced or eliminated by 25 Seduced or eliminated permit fees of the responding jurisdictions(89%). Expedited permitting Expedited solar permitting is reported by ii of the Promoted alternative financing jurisdictions(39%). Atherton Alternative financing for solar power systems Belmont has been promoted by 5 of the responding Brisbane jurisdictions(i3%). Burlingame ■ Campbell Reductions in permit fees for solar PV installations Cupertino can be credited almost exclusively to the Loma Foster City Prieta Chapter's Solar Permit Fee Study;0,which Gilroy was issued in zoos,and the subsequent follow-up Los Altos efforts and press coverage.The study revealed quite Los Altos Hills large variations in solar permit fees,and many Los Gatos jurisdictions subsequently reduced or eliminated Menlo park their high fees as is reflected in the results Milpitas presented here. - Monte Sereno Morgan Hili Exemplary Leader: San Mateo Countyhas Mountain view - shown,exception o l leadership by both having Pacifica the lamest rn�liitctPa.1 sn�arpou�erenera.tiot2' Palo Alto capa cTt Redwood City r o f th.e rt>s��o nd�n- Jitiris ct actio ns and San Bruno hrencoiirct,,,tin,sola-rpo,t�rerinthe cotnawr,z<ty San .rase through both reduced pernat fees and-expiedited San Mateo (city) perm i.ttiny. San Mateo County Santa Clara (city) Santa Clara County Our resultssho-w that surprisingly few local South San Francisco governments have the capacity to getr erate Sunnyvale solar power from systems on their facilities Woodside while at the same time the vast majoriiY of'ihe jurisdictions are facilitating;the installation of solar power systems in the community. Figure 14: Steps taken by responding jurisdictions to reduce barriers to solar power installation in the community. Color bars correspond to the different response options listed for facilitating solar power system installation.See text for details. PAGE 24 Cool to timate Protection Pohcie,� GovernmentLocal and Practices in Warn Mateo an(1 Action Survey 2008 ansa,Clara Cournty jurisdictions g k l �11 �'1�S � tE'1C � C1eI1Cy Some examples of"other measures"include:no longer purchasing water bottles for City Council and Measures to encourage watershed protection and other city meetings(Los Altos),providing incentives promote lower water use,through greater efficiency, for efficient clothes washers(several cities);and are motivated both by the stress that climate change using reclaimed water(in new Santa Clara County places on our water resources as well as the direct buildings). emissions that arise from water use. Increased air and water temperatures contribute to declining Figure j5 presents the responses from each Sierra snowpack.This snowpack effectively jurisdiction. Key results are: stores water(in the form of snow)for use in Action to encourage water-use efficiency is warmer months(as it melts).Reduced snowpack being taken by all respondents but one(96%). accompanied by earlier springtime threatens the availability of summer water. This,coupled with Four or more steps to encourage increased intense summer drought conditions,such as we efficiency of water use and water conservation are currently experiencing,puts undue stress are being taken by 5 jurisdictions W%). on our water resources which is only predicted to worsens''. Furthermore.our flood protection At least one step to encourage water-use structures may not be able to handle future flows efficiency and./or conservation has been taken as rising tides,associated with climate change, by the vast majority of jurisdictions,but much overwhelm levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin snore action is needed to match the challenge delta,in the South Bay,and elsewhere. In addition, posed by expected,changes to the Sierra the energy required to pump,purify,and heat water Nevada,snowpack resulting from climate and wastewater contributes directly to greenhouse change. gas emissions. In this survey,we looked at several different measures that local jurisdictions are taking to reduce V Solid Waste water use.These include the following: Solid waste that ends up in landfills produces • Incentives for installing low-flow toilets; methane,a potent greenhouse gas.Cities and counties can avoid a significant amount of methane • Incentives for drought-tolerant or native generation by diverting reusable,recyclable and landscaping; eompostable products from the landfill through • Use of reclaimed water education and their solid waste collection system. California law requires municipalities to divert at • Public education least 50%of their waste31. • Other measures Twelve jurisdictions(43%)significantly exceed the state mandate of 50%solid waste diversion rates. PAGE 25 Cool Cities ies Local Government ., Actioni MEN Exemplary Leaders:Atherton, Belmont, _Incentives for installing low-flow toilets Brisbane, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno, _ Incentives for drought-tolerant native landscaping _ use of reclaimed water Morgan Hill, MonntainView. Palo ®Public education Alto, Redwood City. San Mateo County, _Other measures Sunnyvale,and Woodside report dit7ersior Atherton rates between 6o and 8o%.'> Belmont Brisbane Burlingame - Support from Resources Campbell Beyond Cities and Counties Cupertino Foster City The challenge of addressing GHG emissions in a Gilroy �- typical community involves technical,financial,and Los Altos _ Los Altos Hills other issues which transcend any one community. Los Gatos _ Examples of technical needs include proper Menlo Park methodology and software tools for evaluating Milpitas emissions inventories and for financial analysis Monte sereno - of proposed emission reduction actions.Another Morgan Hill example would include guidance on creation and Mountain view implementation of a green building ordinance. Pacifica Financial needs could include funding for staff Palo Alto Redwood City time to work on climate protection activities or San Bruno financial assistance for investments in new energy San Jose efficiency measures or solar power generation San Mateo (city) capacity.Hence,support for cities and counties from San Mateo County outside agencies and initiatives is essential and can Santa Clara (city) potentially facilitate and accelerate climate action. Santa Clara County P y South San FranciscoNOWN ., The Climate Protection Program of the Bay Area Air Sunnyvale Quality Management District(BAAQMD)'Z includes Woodside several initiatives to assist local governments. The District's ICLEI-BAAQMD Workshop Series has held Figure 15: Steps takenbycities and counties to increase efficiency of water use.Color bars correspond workshops on developing GHG emission inventories to the different water conservation and efficiency response and selecting climate protection strategies.The options offered in the question. impact of these workshops on evaluations of community-wide emission inventories is suggested by our results on commitment and planning emission inventories.Ten(36%)of the jurisdictions milestones(figure 8).These results show that action responding to our survey have completed such an on key climate protection milestones beyond the inventory while 64%expect to do so by the end of initial commitment is still weak except in the case of 2oo8. PAGE 26 Cl1 1 mate Protection Policies GovernmentLocal rctttccs itr Sanllfateo ur�t� Action Survey 2008 Sawla Cara ( fun.t�-,Jori-sc�i.ctzora. Joint Venture Silicon Valle S Network's J Y� State Climate Protection Initiative 33 has offered a special Leaders ('o , and/or volume purchase agreement with ICLEI18 to reduce Agencies j the cost of having individual public agencies in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties perform municipal GHG emission inventories. The impact Regional of this initiative can also be seen in our results in Re 9� Initiatives figure 8,where although 7(25%)of the responding and/or jurisdictions have already completed a municipal Agencies inventory,93%expect to have completed an inventory by the end of 2o08. Figure 16: Assessment of support from resources beyond City or county governments.Percentages of jurisdictions The City/County Association of Governments listing support as"Very helpful"(green),"Somewhat helpful" (C/CAG)31 in San Mateo County created a program (blue),"Not at all helpful"(orange),or"No opinion"(red). to provide$6,500 to each city in San Mateo County Assessment of support from state government leaders and/or that agreed to participate in the JVSV program to agencies as well as from regional initiatives and/or agencies was surveyed.Total length of each bar corresponds to 100%. reduce the cost of municipal emission inventories. The results in Table 1 suggest that this program likely had an impact since every responding jurisdiction State government leaders and/or agencies were in San Mateo County expects to have completed a listed as very helpful or somewhat helpful by municipal emissions inventory by the end of 2oo8. 50/o of responding jurisdictions The California Air Resources Board(GARB)is the These findings mirror our earlier results that lead agency for implementation of The California regional initiatives and agencies have been quite Global Warming Solutions Act of 2oo6(AB 32).The helpful in stimulating climate protection efforts agency has issued its Climate Change Draft Scoping of cities and counties.The significantly lower Plants for reducing GHG emissions in California to assessment of state level support may reflect the meet the AB 32 targets.The plan addresses a wide focus by CARB on developing a broad plan for array of emission reduction measures including meeting the AB 32 target of reducing emissions by action by local governments and regional emission approximately io/o from current levels by 202o. reduction targets. However,the Cdi.mate Change Draft Scoping Plan does seem to underestimate the potential for early Our questionnaire asked jurisdictions to assess the emission reduction gains from local government support that regional initiatives and/or agencies action given the rapidly growing engagement of have provided to their climate protection efforts; local governments in the Bay Area and elsewhere on a separate question asked for an assessment of climate protection.The draft scoping plan also does support from state government leaders and/or not properly quantify the emission reductions that agencies.Aggregate responses are presented in would be possible through early local government figure 16. action.In addition, the draft plan does not provide for much- needed guidance and technical • Regional initiatives and/or agencies were listed and financial assistance for cities and counties as very helpful or somewhat helpful by 89%of interested in taking early action. responding jurisdictions. PAGE 27 Cool Cities Lection Policies Local Government Climate and Action Survey 2008 ct.ons � F f M rp,y, Our Cool Cities Local Government Clim,ateAction Survey emission reductions.These exemplary leaders results show a growing level of engagement by local offer an opportunity for rapid diffusion of leading governments to reduce GHG emissions from the practices and policies. Silicon Valley Region.However,the region's historic role as a leader does not yet extend to action on the Key challenges include:Planning and implementing climate change challenge.Key metropolitan areas community-wide emissions reductions and such as Portland,Oregon and Seattle,Washington addressing emissions associated with existing have progressed much further and faster in reducing buildings. Our survey suggests a combination of GHG emissions and in planning for climate change Public engagement with local government leaders impacts.The results of our survey suggest our region combined with regional initiatives and other is poised to quickly assume a leadership role if local resources from beyond city and county government government leaders act quickly and decisively to is essential for rapid decisive action to occur at enable emissions reductions from transportation a level needed to meet the climate change/clean and buildings,which dominate the GHG emissions energy challenge. in our area.A rich variety of local jurisdictions are already leading in specific narrow areas of GHG tS I E RRA About the Global Warming Program of the CLUE Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club fOUN11F Il I R92 The Cool Cities Campaign of the Sierra Club Lo na Prieta Chapter is one of four initiatives in the Chapter's Global Warming Program to reduce greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions from the Silicon Valley Region.The Cool Cities Campaign is a National Sierra Club Campaign that forms teams of volunteers in each city and county to work for local government action to reduce emissions.The Campaign currently has 19 Cool Cities Teams of volunteers in the cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and one Cool Countv Team in San Mateo County.Other initiatives in the Chapter's Global Warming Program include an Education and Outreach initiative,an initiative to work for emissions reductions by individuals and institutions,and an initiative to reduce local barriers to the installation of solar power. For more information go to: lomaprietaglobalwarming.sierraclub.org, or contact the Global Warming Program Coordinator,Julio Magalhaes, at e-mail: julio.magalhaes@sierraclub.org, phone: 650-390-8441. PACE 2a r 1 1 p0rt On Climate Prtateetian P���e�� GovernmentLocal to d Practl ces;n San ateO and Action Survey 2008 Sant t" Clara Counly isdied'ons (Endnotes) 19. Farrell,A.E.et al(2oo6)."Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals",Science iii, i. Loma Prieta Chapter,Sierra Club,Cool Cities 506-508 Campaign:lomaprietaglobalwarming.sierraclub. org.An electronic version of this report and 20. Ewing,R.,et al(2007).Growing Cooler,The Evidence auxiliary documents can be found at this web- on Urban Development and Climate Change.Urban address. Land Institute,(www.smartgruwthamerica.org) 2. Sierra Club Cool Cities Campaign(www.cooleities. 21. The Building Sector:AHidden Culprit us) (www.architecture2o3o.org/current_situation/ bu ildi ng_sector.btml) 3. U.S.Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement(usmayors.org/climateprotection/) 22. Build It Green(www.builditgreen.org) 4. U.S.Cool Counties Climate Stabilization Initiative 23. U.S.Green Building Council(www.usgbe.org) (www.kingcounty,gov/exec/coolcounties) 24. Association of Bay Area Governments(ABAG), 5. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Executive Board minutes of June 17,2008 meeting (AB 32),(www.climatechange.ca.gov/publications/ (wAw.abag.ca.gov/meetings/execboard.html) legislation/ab_,32-bi11_2o06o927_chaptered.pdf) 25. Santa Clara County Cities Association(SCCCA), 6. Survey on Mayoral Leadership on Climate Protection, Nov 200;Joint Board/LAC Meeting Summary(www. (www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/ sccca.gov) elimatesurveyo7.pdf) 26. City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance(www. 7. Questionnaire used in this survey can be found at: cityofpalualtu.org/environment/news) lumaprietaglobalwarming.sierraclub.org/survey- results.php pacala,S.and R.Socolow:"Stabilization Wedges: results.php Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 5o Years 8. IPCC.Climate Change 2007:The Physical Science with Current Technologies",Science,Vol.305,pages Basis,(www.ipec.ch) 968-972,August 13,2004. 9. California Air Resources Board GHG Inventory, 28. Lewis,N.S.:"Powering the Planet"presentation (www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/inventory.htm) (nsl.caltech.edu/energy.html). 10. Annual Energy Outlook 2oo8,Energy Information 29. Kammen,D.M.,"The Rise of Renewable Energy", Administration,Department of Energy,(www.eia. Scientific American,Vol.295,pages 84-89, doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html) September 2oo6. 11. Executive Order S-2o-o6 by the Governor of the 30. Mills,C.and K.Newick(2007). "Solar Electric State of California(2oo6).(gov.ca.gov/executive- Permit Fees in Northern California"(lomaprieta. order/4484). sierraclub.org/global_warming/fee_study.htm), 12. Our Changing Climate,2oo6,California Climate 31. California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989; Change Center,(www.climatechange.ca.gov). The California Integrated Waste Management Board(CIWB),includes in its waste diversion 13. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate rate calculation methodology,factors that reflect Change(unfece.int) changes in population,employment,and inflation- corrected taxable sales relative to a base year.These 14. BayAreaAirQualityMan•agement District(BAAQMD) factors can lead to variances between corrected rates GHG Regional Inventory(www.baagmd.gov) and actual measured rates of diversion. 15. California Air Resources Board Climate Change,Draft 32, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Climate Scoping Plan,June 2oo8(www.arb.ca.gov) Protection Program ICLEI-BAAQMD Workshop 16. City of San Mateo Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Series(www.baagmd.gov) Report,October 24,2007 33. Joint Venture Silicon Valley Network's Climate 17. Sustainable Silicon Valley,(sustainablesiliconvalley. Protection Initiative(www.jointventure.org) org) 34. City/County Association of Governments of San 18. ICLEI(www.iclei.org) Mateo County(www.ceag.ca.gov) PAGE 29 THE LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER of th SIERRA CLUB FOUNDED 1892 Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club 3921 East Bayshore Road, Suite 204 Palo Alto, CA 94303 4 C Climate Action Campaign: Addressing Global Warming in the Silicon Valley Region lomaprietaglobalwarming.sierraclub.org For more information please call: 650-390-8441 ® Printed on Recycled.Paper CITY C BURUNGAME Dm QDFnieD JUN[6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of August 18, 2008 STUDY SESSION a. PRESENTATION OF STORM DRAIN FEE IMPERVIOUS AREA STUDY AND POLL RESULTS The Council was presented with information on the fee study, polling results, and next steps which will include a public education program and participation of a Citizens Group. Council input supported moving forward with the next steps for a storm drain fee to fund a $39 million dollar project. Council input also supported consideration of a tracking poll prior to moving forward with the ballot. Several members of the community spoke and gave their support for moving forward. 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 M. O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Bill Toci, Manager of Veolia West Operating Services. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran,Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES One correction was made to the minutes of the July 21, 2008 regular Council meeting: Item 5.a.: To correct the spelling of Jeffrey Griffith. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the July 21, 2008 regular Council meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)): City of Burlingame vs. Gladysz, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 463190 1 Burlingame City Council August 18,2008 Unapproved Minutes b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board; and Claim of Diana Heze 5. PRESENTATIONS a. RECOGNITION OF VEOLIA WATER'S CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE CITY'S MUSIC IN THE PARK CONCERT SERIES P&RD Schwartz introduced Bill Toci, Burlingame Plant Manager, and Chuck Voltz, President,both representing Veolia West Operating Services which has proven to be a great community partner with the City in renovating the Village Park preschool facility in 1999 and since 2002, has contributed $5,000 annually to allow the City's Music in the Park Concert Series to continue. b. PROCLAMATIONS HONORING BURLINGAME YOUTH BASEBALL ASSOCIATION TEAM MEMBERS Mayor O'Mahony introduced Coach Nuss who thanked his team members for their sportsmanship and winning the 2008 American Legion Area 2 Championship. Mayor O'Mahony and Councilwoman Baylock presented proclamations to each team member commemorating their championship. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA PERMIT, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE,AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 1837 HUNT DRIVE CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and take action. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney for applicant/appellant; Thomas Nuris, attorney for neighbors at 1847 Hunt Drive; Russell McGovern, 1812 Hunt Drive; Theodore Vlahos, 1847 Hunt Drive; and Pat Giorm, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the project. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Council discussion followed: some members felt that the proposed addition does not block a long distance view; others felt that the neighbor does have a long distance view; the addition can be placed at the rear of the building and be built up from there; neighbor's view is from high functioning rooms, fence could be lower(5 feet high)with landscaping added to rise above the fence; young families need more living space. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to deny the appeal without prejudice and uphold the Planning Commission's action with the finding that the present plan does obstruct the view and impinge on the quality of life of their neighbors and with the recommendation that they explore alternatives to build lower and farther back on the property and clarify what they can do with the slope easement and to consider landscaping rather than just straight fencing; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved by roll call vote, 3-2 (Deal and O'Mahony dissented). CA Anderson advised that staff will submit a resolution at the September 2nd Council meeting confirming Council's findings. 2 Burlingame City Council August 18,2008 Unapproved Minutes 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Greg Conlon, 875 Mahler Road, spoke on high speed rail. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on tonight's study session. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. RESOLUTION NO. 73-2008 APPROVING FREE INTERNET SERVICE FROM ASTOUND BROADBAND AND PROVIDING RECOGNITION FOR FREE SERVICE FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve a resolution accepting free internet service from Astound and recognizing Astound for the free service by placing a placard at the entrance to the Chambers informing the public that free, wireless internet service is being provided by Astound and by posting a similar message on the City website. The City required installation of a non-City network internet connection as part of the audio equipment upgrade project in the Chambers. Councilman Deal made a motion to approve Resolution No. 73-2008 recognizing and thanking Astound Broadband for providing free City access for use in community broadcasting at City Hall; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION OF STOCK COOPERATIVES TO CONDOMINIUMS Councilman Deal recused himself from this item because he resides near a property that would be affected by this amendment request. Councilman Deal left the Chambers. CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance to amend certain provisions of the Subdivision Regulations. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 26.30 to specify requirements for conversion from stock cooperative to condominium. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Deal recused). Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Deal recused). Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Councilman Deal returned to the dais. C. AMEND THE CITY'S COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY TO ESTABLISH AN ANNUAL TIMELINE FOR THE WALK OF FAME P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt the proposed annual timeline for Burlingame's Walk of Fame. Councilwoman Nagel requested staff to increase publicizing the solicitation of nominations this year to enhance public awareness. 3 Burlingame City Council August 18,2008 Unapproved Minutes Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to amend the Community Recognition Policy to establish an annual timeline for the Burlingame Walk of Fame; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING FACILITY IMPACT FEE PROCESS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance establishing a process for setting facility impact fees. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance adding Chapter 25.80 to establish public facilities impact fees for development projects in the City. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. e. RESOLUTION NO. 72-2008 APPROVING REVISED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR HOUSING ENDOWMENT AND REGIONAL TRUST OF SAN MATEO COUNTY CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council to adopt a resolution approving changes to the Joint Powers Agreement for the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County as recommended by the member Agency Committee. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve Resolution No. 72-2008 approving a revised Joint Powers Agreement for participation in the Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County(HEART) and authorizing the Mayor to execute the revised Joint Powers Agreement; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. L FINANCIAL UPDATE ON THE CITY'S CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and budget statement advising that the budget numbers, thus far, represent a total profit of$19,089. Sponsorships and merchandise sales still are being received, and there are some outstanding event expenses to be paid. Councilwoman Baylock commended Joleen Butler, Account Clerk, for all the Centennial accounting work she processed. CM Nantell commended P&RD Schwartz for the outstanding leadership and guidance he provided to all the Centennial committees. Councilwoman Nagel commended Karen Key, Centennial Gala Committee Chairwoman, for her expertise and leadership in producing a successful event along with a large net profit. g. BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION VACANCIES—RECRUITMENT SCHEDULE CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and recommended that Council call for applications for the Beautification Commission. The application deadline was set for September 12, 2008. 4 Burlingame City Council August 18,2008 Unapproved Minutes h. STATE BUDGET FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and provided a briefing on the State budget threatening City services. Potentially, the State would borrow money from cities ($1.5 million from Burlingame) to help balance the State budget. This could cause cutbacks to each of our City departments, further limiting our ability to provide local services to our citizens. CM Nantell encouraged the public to contact local State legislators to request they go on record opposing State loans. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 71-2008 AUTHORIZING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TO PERFORM PHASE 2 WORK FOR THE STORM DRAIN FEE BALLOT MEASURE DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 71-2008 authorizing execution of agreement for professional services with Willdan Financial Services for the Storm Drain Fee Ballot Measure City Project, Phase 2. b. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 70-2008 AMENDING THE TERM OF OFFICE LANGUAGE IN THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FC Dornell requested Council approve Resolution No. 70-2008 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Joint Powers Agreement creating the Central County Fire Department and authorizing the Mayor to sign the agreement. C. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1828 AMENDING CHAPTER 8.16 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO REQUIRE THAT ALL OCCUPIED PROPERTIES HAVE COLLECTION SERVICE AND TO UPDATE SOLID WASTE COLLECTION DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS P&RD Schwartz requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1828 amending Chapter 8.16 to clearly require that all occupied properties have collection service and to update the solid waste collection definitions and requirements and direct CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. d. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 69-2008 MAKING APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, ROY ABRAMS HRD Dolan requested Council adopt Resolution No. 69-2008 appointing Roy C. Abrams as Interim City Attorney effective August 31, 2008. e. ACCEPT REPORTS FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CITY OF BURLINGAME REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES DO NOT REQUIRE AMENDMENT CC Mortensen requested Council accept reports from the Executive Officers of both agencies that no amendments are needed to the Conflict of Interest Codes of the City of Burlingame Redevelopment Agency and the City of Burlingame Financing Authority. 5 Burlingame City Council August 18,2008 Unapproved Minutes L ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 68-2008 ADOPTING 2008 AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S PURCHASING AND CONTRACTIG PROCEDURES CA Anderson requested Council adopt Resolution No. 68-2008 adopting amendments to the City's Purchasing and Contracting Procedures. g. RESOLUTION NO. 67-2008 AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO CITY COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS EA Silva requested Council adopt Resolution No. 67-2008 revising procedures for appointments to City Commissions and Boards. h. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants 434043-34614 duly audited, in the amount of $2,400,797.43 (excluding Library checks #34043-34085); Payroll checks 4172064-172332 in the amount of $2,934,074.15 for the month of July 2008. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Agenda Items 8.h. and 9.d. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS DPW Murtuza provided a brief overview of the City's program to convert to biodiesel fuel for City vehicles. CM Nantell requested Council concur on what dates to set for reviewing applications for a new City Attorney and for interviewing the candidates selected. Council agreed to set Tuesday, September 2, at 5 p.m. to review applications and to advise staff in the near future of the interview date. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. BURLINGAME PARTICIPATION IN SAN MATEO COUNTY DISASTER PREPAREDNESS DAY—SEPTEMBER 13 FC Dornell advised that the Central County Fire Department(CCFD)will participate in San Mateo County's Disaster Preparedness Day on Saturday, September 13, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the San Mateo County Event Center in San Mateo. Admission is free. He also advised that the CCFD will provide training for the next Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) classes which start on Wednesday, October 15. Registration for CERT will be offered in the Fall Recreation Brochure. 6 Burlingame City Council August 18, 2008 Unapproved Minutes 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, June 24, 2008; Planning, August 11, 2008 b. Department Reports: Police, June 2008; building, July 2008; Finance, June and July 2008 c. Staff Report from City Librarian concerning Library use statistics, FY 2007-2008 d. Letter from Comcast concerning programming adjustments e. Letters from Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County; Mission Hospice; Youth&Family Enrichment Services; and Burlingame Historical Society gratefully acknowledging City's contribution 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m. in memory of Father Albert Vucinovich of Saint Catherine of Siena Catholic Church; Joe Fernekes, former mayor of South San Francisco; and Don Ringler, a former member of the Burlingame Historical Society. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 7 Burlingame City Council August 18,2008 Unapproved Minutes CITY 0 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 5c BUixuNGAME Burlingame Public Library MEETING DATE: 9�2�08 o "NnT[o J NE 6 August 21, 2008 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian APPROVED BY: MOWOff- A14 SUBJECT: Library Receives 7 National Awards The Burlingame Public Library was the recipient of 7 national awards from the American Library Association for public relations in July 2008. On hand to receive the awards, was Librarian Amy Pelman. The awards consisted of a clean sweep of the ALA Awards for 2008. This brings to 42 the number of state and national awards won by the Burlingame Public Library in the last 10 years. Background: The purpose of marketing the library is to encourage library use and to share the City's investment in library resources to as wide an audience as possible. The public is indeed hearing the marketing message, as our circulation of materials reached an all-time high at 65,005 items circulated in July 2008, an increase of 19% over July 2007! The Library manages to keep up with the increase in business by offering "self check" options for our users. Over 60% of circulation is now done by library users, not staff. This has enabled us to continue to offer a high level of service, without an increase in staffing. Marketing Team The Library maintains a very active Marketing Team. Members of the team include: Pat Harding, Barry Mills, Sue Reiterman, Mary Beth James-Thibodeaux, Linda Santo, Kathy von Mayrhauser, Amy Pelman, Brad McCulley, Manuel Caneri and Maryam Refahi. The winning entries were created by members of the Marketing Team and executed in award winning designs by graphic artist Maryam Refahi. Awards Received Awards were given for the following public relations campaigns. Support for these projects was provided by the Burlingame Library Foundation: 1) Burlingame Library Foundation Newsletter, Fall 2007 edition 1 2) Foundation Author's Luncheon Campaign, featuring Hon. Jackie Speier, May 2007 3) Gennifer Choldenko Author Program poster, Adult and Family Reading Materials 4) Chris Crutcher Author appearance poster, Young Adult Reading materials, 2007 5) Wii Will Rock You poster, Young Adult program, 2007 6) Harry Potter Pre-Release Party, Children's Reading Club, July 2007 7) Check Burlingame Library and MySpace poster, Print promotion of websites As City Librarian, I am proud of my staff, as I know you are, for their efforts in marketing and maintaining quality library services which reflect so positively on the City of Burlingame. 2 AGENDA ITEM r4 6. BURL�E STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 2.2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: August 26,2008 APPROVED BY: FROM: William Meeker,Community Development Director—(650)558-4255 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 26 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE,SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION OF STOCK COOPERATIVES TO CONDOMINIUMS INTRODUCTION The City Council should conduct a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance to amend certain provisions of the Subdivision Regulations to permit the conversion of stock cooperatives to condominiums. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. In its action, the Council should: 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance;and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. The public hearing for action was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation(San Mateo County Times)on August 25,2008. BACKGROUND On August 18, 2008, the City Council introduced the proposed ordinance to amend the City's Subdivision Regulations to permit the conversion of stock cooperatives to condominiums by a 5-0 vote and directed the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance and set the date for a second reading and adoption of the ordinance on September 2,2008. The City's regulations governing the conversion of apartments to condominium form of ownership were first adopted in 1981 (see Section 26.30 of the Subdivision Regulations, attached). In the 1960s, stock cooperatives were a means of providing the opportunity for common interest types of development similar to condominium ownership. Staff is aware of at least one legally created stock cooperative within the boundaries of the City of Burlingame, located at 1217 Paloma Avenue. However,the stock cooperative form of ownership is outdated, and makes it cumbersome at best for property improvements to be made. The owners of the units at 1217 Paloma Avenue would like to convert the property from stock cooperative to condominium form of ownership. Current regulations governing condominium conversions preclude the conversion of the Paloma Avenue property to a condominium style of ownership since it does not meet the minimum threshold for condominium conversion(a minimum of 20-units are required). As noted, stock cooperatives are a legal form of common interest development similar to condominiums. Requiring the owners of such units to comply with the City's standard condominium conversion procedures does not make sense, given that the units are already individually owned. For this reason,a new section to the Subdivision Regulations has been drafted to create an orderly process to permit conversion of stock cooperatives to condominiums (see attached ordinance). ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 26 (Subdivision Regulations) August 26, 2008 The process outlined in the ordinance creates a procedure similar to an exemption from the Subdivision Map Act to be used for conversion of legally existing stock cooperatives to condominium form of ownership. Environmental Review Status: Adoption of the proposed amendment to the City's Subdivision Regulations to create a process whereby legally organized stock cooperatives (as defined in Section 1351 of the California Civil Code) may be converted to condominium form of ownership is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Adoption of code provisions that will permit such conversions, and the act of permitting a change from a "stock cooperative" form of ownership to "condominium" form of ownership, do not have the potential to create a significant environmental impact, since the units already existed and involved are individually owned. For this reason, the "general rule" of the CEQA is deemed to apply in that "it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment" (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b)(3) — Review for Exemption). ATTACHMENTS ■ Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 26.30 to Specify Requirements for Conversion from Stock Cooperative to Condominium 2 l ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 26.30 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONVERSION FROM STOCK COOPERATIVE 3 TO CONDOMINIUM 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The City's requirements for conversion of apartments to condominiums 8 were first adopted in 1981 and have served the City well. However,the City contains at least one 9 stock cooperative, which was a legal form of ownership used in the 1960's to create a common 10 interest development similar to a condominium. It does not make sense to make such a common 1 l interest development go through a full condominium conversion process when the units are already 12 individually owned, nor to apply the City's current bar of less than twenty (20) units from 13 apartments to condominiums to conversion of a stock cooperative. The stock cooperative form of 14 ownership has become dated,and it is important to provide an orderly process to allow properties 15 owned in this form to be renovated. This ordinance will provide a process similar to an exemption 16 in the Subdivision Map Act to be used for conversion of legally existing stock cooperatives to 17 condominiums. 18 19 Section 2. A new Section 26.30.028 is added to read as follows: 20 26.30.028 Conversion from stock cooperative to condominium. 21 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, including any provision of chapter 22 26.32, a stock cooperative as defined in section 1351 of the Civil Code may be converted to a 23 condominium as defined in section 783 of the Civil Code if all of the following are met: 24 (1)The stock cooperative was legally organized and created pursuant to state and local law 25 in effect at the time of the organization and creation, and the stock cooperative has continued in 26 uninterrupted existence until the date of the conversion; and 27 (2)A tentative map and final map for a condominium are filed and approved by the council 28 as provided in to chapter 26.08 in the forms provided for other condominium maps under this title; 1 I and 2 (3)All persons renting units in a cooperative are provided all tenant rights under state and 3 local law,including,but not limited to,rights respecting first refusal,notice,and displacement and 4 relocation benefits as described in section 26.33.060. 5 (b) If the stock cooperative conversion is exempt from the Subdivision Map Act pursuant 6 to Government Code section 66412, then subsection (a)(2) shall not apply to the conversion 7 application. Instead, the application shall be reviewed by the planning commission for 8 conformance with section 66412 and subsections(a)(1)and(a)(3)above,and upon approval by the 9 commission,the city will certify conformance with section 66412 and this section in a form to be 10 recorded with the county recorder. 11 (c)Procedures for filing and approval of applications under this section,as well as appeals 12 from decisions made,shall follow sections 26.08.020,26.08.02 1,and 26.08.030,as applicable,and 13 section 25.16.060. 14 15 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty 16 (30) days after its adoption. 17 18 Mayor 19 20 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 21 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18' day 22 of August, 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2 3 day of , 2008, by the following vote: 24 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 76 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 City Clerk 28 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\stockconversion2008.pin.wpd CITY AGENDA 6b �rw 0 ITEM# ------ E _ ----E STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 9/2/2008 <o ry TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITT BY r, DATE: August 27, 2008 APPROVE , BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: A. ADOPT ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE PROCESS B. ADOPT RESOLUTION ADOPTING PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION: A. Adopt ordinance establishing a process for setting public facilities impact fees and request City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adopting as follows: B. Adopt resolution adopting public facilities impact fee schedule. DISCUSSION: As earlier discussed, the City undertook a comprehensive study of the City's fee structure last year, including the possibility of establishing fees that would mitigate some of the effects that new development has on the City's facilities and infrastructure. Following a number of study sessions, the Council asked the Council's economic development subcommittee to review the impact fee concepts and recommend any revisions for Council consideration. The subcommittee met with staff and recommended that library impact fees not apply to new commercial, office, or industrial developments. The subcommittee also recommended that the fee resolution establish exemptions for certain levels or types of development, such as hotels,that generate significant City revenue or that provide a greatly needed type of development, such as affordable housing. A. Ordinance The attached ordinance establishes City authority and the procedures for imposing and administering impact fees, including trust accounts for each category of facilities impact fee. The ordinance provides that fees are adopted by resolution and are assessed for and placed in seven separate accounts: General facilities and equipment; Libraries; Police; Parks and recreation; Streets and traffic; Fire; and Storm Drainage. Fees would be paid before issuance of a construction permit; however, for housing developments, the fees would probably be collected upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy in many cases. Mayor and Council Re: Facilities Impact Fees August 27, 2008 Page 2 B. Resolution (Schedule) The proposed resolution actually sets the fee amounts,provides definitions, sets the effective date with regard to projects that are currently under City review, and defines the development projects that would be exempt from some or all of the fees. The fees amounts are those recommended by the study. Under the schedule, a new single family dwelling would pay a total of$9,162 in facilities impact fees (a duplex would pay twice that amount). A new multifamily dwelling project would pay at a total of$5,537 per dwelling unit; for example, a thirty-unit apartment development would pay$166,110. A commercial use would pay $2,780 for each 1,000 square feet that it added in building square footage. For example, a new retail store (not replacing an existing store) of 10, 000 square feet would pay $27,800 in impact fees. An office use would pay $8,681 for each 1,000 square feet that it added in building square footage. For example, a new office building (not replacing an existing office) of 75, 000 square feet would pay $651,075 in impact fees. An industrial use would pay $2,301 for each 1,000 square feet that it added in building square footage. For example, a new warehouse (not replacing an existing industrial use) of 100,000 square feet would pay $230,100. It is important to remember that the fees are only charged for added square footage or added dwelling units. Replacement or remodeling does not trigger a fee. A minimal fee would also be charge if a refund is required. The resolution specifies that the following exemptions would apply: 1. Hotels that contain at least fifty(50)rooms that are located in the Shoreline (SL), Anza Area (AA), or Anza Point North (APN) Zoning Districts or in the Inner Bayshore (113)Zoning District along Bayshore Highway because of the transient occupancy taxes that the hotels contribute to the City. This exemption does not apply to extended stay hotels or residential hotels 2. Hotels that contain at least twenty(20)rooms that are located in the C-1 Zoning Districts because of the transient occupancy taxes that the hotels contribute to the City. This exemption does not apply to extended stay hotels or residential hotels 3. Developments located in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area are exempt from paying the Streets and Traffic public facilities impact fee because those developments are already subject to payment of a fee for similar purposes pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1751 and 1793. Mayor and Council Re: Adoption of Ordinance Establishing Process for Public Facilities Impact Fees & Resolution Adopting Fee Schedule August 27, 2008 Page 3 4. Developments located in the Bayfront Specific Plan Area are exempt from paying the Streets and Traffic public facilities impact fee because those developments are already subject to payment of a fee for similar purposes pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1151, 1305, and 1739. 5. Commercial, office, and industrial developments are exempt from paying the Library public facilities impact fee because these developments do not currently seem to have a significant impact on the provision of City library services or facilities. Additional exemptions will be developed over the coming twelve months as the Economic Development Specialist and the Director of Community Development further refine the City's economic development program; the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan is completed; and the Housing Element is updated, using this exemption opportunity in its goal-setting. The Director of Community Development will administer the system, and the Director's decision will be appealable to the Planning Commission as a determination. The fees would go into effect on November 2, 2008. As with other similar provisions that the City has adopted, such as design review requirements and new construction codes, applications that had received approval from the Planning Commission would not have to pay the fees unless an amendment to the approved application resulted in additional dwelling units (in the case of residential uses) or additional square footage (in the case of commercial, office, or residential uses). Pending and unfiled applications would have to pay the fees. Notice of the proposed ordinance and the proposed fees was given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with the Government Code, and by mailing to the Home Builders Association. Attachment Proposed Ordinance Proposed Resolution Distribution Finance Director Director of Community Development I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDING CHAPTER 25.80 TO ESTABLISH PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR 3 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. 8 a. The City undertook a comprehensive study of the impacts that development projects 9 have on the City and its citizens. The City found that development projects create impacts on a 10 variety of City services and facilities, and these impacts can be addressed in part by the 11 imposition of predictable impact fees when the projects are ready to proceed with construction. 12 b. In order to implement the goals and objectives of the Burlingame General Plan and 13 Specific Plans and to mitigate impacts caused by new development within the City, public 14 facilities impact fees are necessary. The fees are needed to finance public facilities and to assure 15 that each new development pays its fair share for these improvements. 16 c. Government Code section 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act)provides that public 17 facilities fees may be enacted and imposed on development projects. The City Council finds and 18 determines that: 19 1. New development projects cause the need for acquisition, construction, expansion, and 20 improvement of public facilities within the City of Burlingame and should bear a proportionate 21 share of meeting those needs. 22 2. Funds for construction, expansion, or improvement of public facilities are not available 23 to accommodate all of the needs caused by new development projects, which results in 24 inadequate public facilities within the City of Burlingame. 25 c. The City Council finds that the public health, safety, peace, convenience, comfort, 26 prosperity and general welfare of all City residents, will be promoted by the adoption of public 27 facilities impact fees for the construction, expansion, or improvement of public facilities. 28 d. Failure to enact public facilities impact fees will subject all City residents to 1 I conditions that adversely affect their health, safety and welfare. 2 3. It is intended that these funds may be used to pay for acquisition of land and facilities, 3 construction of new or additions to public facilities, and expansion of public services, materials, 4 and infrastructure. 5 4. The fees authorized by this ordinance are based upon the costs incrementally generated 6 by the need for new facilities and other capital acquisition expenses by new development 7 projects, and do not exceed the reasonable costs of providing those additional public facilities 8 costs caused by new development projects in the City. 9 5. It is further intended that this fee process will provide developers with reasonable 10 certainty in creating new development project concepts. 11 12 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.80 is added to read as follows: 13 Chapter 25.80 14 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES 15 Sections: 25.80.010 Definitions. 16 25.80.020 Collection of Public Facilities Fees. 25.80.030 Conditions for Collection. 17 25.80.040 Conditions for Reimbursement. 25.80.050 Fee Payment. 18 25.80.060 Public Facilities Impact Fee Account. 25.80.070 Natural Disaster Fee Exemption. 19 25.80.080 Capital Improvement Plan. 25.80.090 Procedure for Adoption of Fees. 20 25.80.100 Fee Adjustments or Waiver. 21 22 25.80.010 Definitions. 23 Words, when used in this chapter and in resolutions adopted thereunder, shall have the 24 following meanings: 25 (a) "Development permit" means any building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, 26 demolition permit, moving permit, or any other permit required by this code for issuance before 27 construction, reconstruction, remodeling, moving structures or any similar activity can be 28 lawfully undertaken on a parcel of property in the city. 2 I (b) "Development project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development. "Development project" includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for 3 construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate. 4 (c) "Fee" means a money exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is 5 charged by the city to an applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the 6 purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development 7 project. 8 (d) "Public facility" includes public improvements, public services, and community 9 amenities. 10 11 25.80.020 Collection of Public Facilities Impact Fees. 12 Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, public facilities impact fees shall be paid 13 pursuant to this chapter before the issuance of any development permit. 14 15 25.80.030 Conditions for Collection. 16 (a) The following public facilities impact fees are established and imposed on the 17 issuance of development permits within the city as determined by resolution of the city council: 18 (1) General facilities and equipment. A development fee is established for general 19 facilities and equipment. 20 (2) Libraries. A development fee is established for library facilities, equipment, and 21 materials. 22 (3) Police. A development fee is established for police facilities and equipment. 23 (4) Parks and recreation. A development fee is established for parks and recreation 24 facilities and equipment. 25 (5) Streets and traffic. A development fee is established for street sand traffic facilities 26 and equipment. 27 (6) Fire. A development fee is established for fire facilities and equipment. 28 (7) Storm drainage. A development fee is established for storm drainage facilities and 3 I equipment. 2 (b) In establishing and imposing the schedule and application of the public facilities 3 impact fees by resolution, the city council will do the following: 4 (1) Identify the purpose of the fee; 5 (2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put; 6 (3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees used and the type 7 of development on which the fee is imposed; and 8 (4) Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public 9 facility and the impacts caused by the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 10 11 25.80.035 Deposit of Fees. 12 (a) Upon receipt of a fee subject to this chapter, the city shall deposit, invest, account for, 13 and expend the fees pursuant to Government Code Section 66006. The city shall retain fee 14 interest accrued and allocate it to the accounts for which the original fee was imposed. 15 (b) Each fee collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in a special fund created 16 to hold the revenue generated by each such fee. Moneys within each such fund may be expended 17 only by appropriation by the city council for specific projects which are of the same category as 18 that for which the money was collected. In this regard, the following special funds are created 19 and established for the purposes indicated: 20 (1) A general facilities and equipment fund is established. The general facilities and 21 equipment fund is a fund for payment of the actual or estimated costs of constructing and 22 improving the general municipal facilities within the city, including any required acquisition of 23 land. 24 (2) A library facilities, materials, and equipment fund is established. The library 25 facilities, material, and equipment fund is a fund for payment of the actual or estimated costs of 26 library facilities, materials, and equipment, including any required acquisition of land. 27 (3) A police facilities and equipment fund is established. The police facilities and 28 equipment fund is a fund for payment of the actual or estimated costs of police facilities and 4 I equipment, including any required acquisition of land. 2 (4) A parks and recreation facilities and equipment fund is established. The parks and 3 recreation facilities and equipment fund is a fund for the payment of the actual or estimated costs 4 of parks and recreation facilities and equipment, including any required acquisition of land. 5 (5) A streets and traffic facilities and equipment fund is established. The streets and 6 traffic facilities and equipment fund is a fund for the payment of the actual or estimated costs of 7 streets and traffic facilities and equipment, including any required acquisition of land. 8 (6) A fire facilities and equipment fund is established. The fire facilities and equipment 9 fund is a fund for payment of the actual or estimated costs of fire facilities and equipment, 10 including any required acquisition of land. 11 (7) A storm drainage facilities and equipment fund is established. The storm drainage 12 facilities and equipment fund is a fund for payment of the actual or estimated costs of 13 constructing and improving the storm drain facilities and for associated equipment, including an) 14 required acquisition of land. 15 (c) The city manager shall provide a report on these funds to the city council no less than 16 once a year in accordance with Government Code section 66006. 17 18 25.80.040 Computation of fee. 19 (a) The uses in the development project approved by the city shall be utilized in the 20 computation of fees required to be paid with respect to any property. If a parcel contains more 21 than one use, then the applicable fees shall be prorated by square footage or dwelling units, as 22 appropriate, attributable to each use. 23 (b) The fees shall be based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of 24 square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New 25 development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is 26 entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including 27 a nonconforming use. 28 (c) New development that will replace development that was partially or totally 5 I destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake, mudslide, or other casualty or act of God, is entitled to a fee 2 credit offset if the development that was partially or totally destroyed was a lawful use under this 3 title, including a nonconforming use, at the time of the destruction. 4 (d) All fees due under this chapter shall be determined and calculated by the director of 5 community development or the director's designee. 6 7 25.80.070 Natural Disaster Fee Exemption. 8 No fee adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be applied by the city to the reconstruction 9 of any residential, commercial or industrial development project that is damaged or destroyed as 10 a result of a natural disaster as declared by the governor of the state insofar as the reconstruction 11 is substantially equivalent in size and use as defined under Government Code section 66011. 12 13 25.80.075 Exemption for Existing Buildings and Uses. 14 (a) The following shall be exempted from payment of applicable public facilities impact 15 fees: 16 (1) Alterations, renovations or expansion of an existing residential building or structure 17 where no additional dwelling units are created and the use is not changed. 18 (2) Alterations or renovations of an existing commercial or industrial building or 19 structure where no expansion occurs and the use is not changed. 20 (b) For purposes of this section: 21 (1) "Expansion" shall be defined as any increase in the gross floor area of the existing 22 building or structure. 23 (2) "Change of use" shall be defined as a change or intensification of the use of a portion 24 or all of a building or structure in such a way that additional parking is required by this title. 25 26 25.80.045 Fee Payment. 27 (a) Fees shall be paid at or before the time of issuance of the first required development 28 permit for a development project. However, if the development project is a residential project as 6 I defined in Government Code subsection 66007,then the time for payment of fees shall be 2 governed by the provisions of Section 66007. 3 (b) The fee shall be determined by the fee schedule in effect on the date the vesting 4 tentative map or vesting parcel map is approved, or the date a development permit is issued. 5 (c) When application is made for a new building permit following the expiration of a 6 previously issued building permit for which fees were paid, a new fee payment shall not be 7 required, unless the fee schedule has been amended during the interim; in this event,the 8 appropriate increase or decrease shall be applied to permit issuance. 9 (d) In the event that development has already lawfully occurred on a parcel for which 10 public facilities impact fees were imposed, fees shall be required only for additional square 11 footage of development that was not included in computing a prior fee. 12 (e) When a fee is paid for a development project and that project is subsequently reduced 13 so that it would have been entitled to a lower fee,the city shall issue a prorated refund of the paid 14 fee. 15 (f) When a fee is paid for a development project and the project is subsequently and 16 irrevocably abandoned in writing without any further activity beyond the obtaining of a first 17 development permit, the payer shall be entitled to a refund of the fee paid, minus the 18 administrative portion of the fee. A written request for a refund of a fee paid in connection with 19 an expired or abandoned development project must be made to the director of community 20 development within 120 days of the expiration of the permit. Failure to submit the request 21 within this time limit shall constitute a waiver of any right to any refund of the fee, and the fee 22 shall be retained in and expended from the fund to which it was deposited. 23 24 25.80.041 In-lieu Construction or Provision of Facilities or Equipment 25 (a) In-lieu credit. 26 (1)A developer that has been required by the city to construct any facilities or 27 improvements, or a portion thereof, referenced in a resolution adopted pursuant to this chapter as 28 a condition of approval of a development permit may request an in-lieu credit of the specific 7 I public facilities impact fee for the same development. Upon request, an in-lieu credit of fees shall 2 be granted for facilities or improvements that mitigate all or a portion of the need therefor that is 3 attributable to and reasonably related to the given development. 4 (2) Only costs proportional to the amount of the improvement or facility that mitigates the 5 need therefor attributable to and reasonably related to the given development shall be eligible for 6 in-lieu credit, and then only against the specific, relevant fees involved to which the facility or 7 improvement relates. 8 (3) Fees required under this chapter shall be reduced by the actual construction costs of 9 the facilities or improvements that relate to the fee, as demonstrated by the applicant and 10 reviewed and approved by the director of community development, and consistent with the 11 provisions of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section. Subject to the applicable provisions of 12 subsection(b) of this section, if the cost of the facilities or improvements is greater than required 13 relevant fees, this chapter does not create an obligation on the city to pay the applicant the excess 14 amount. 15 (4) An amount of in-lieu credit that is greater than the specific fee required under this 16 chapter may be reserved and credited toward the fee of any subsequent phases of the same 17 development, if determined appropriate by the director of community development. The director 18 may set a time limit for reservation of the credit. 19 (b). Developer construction of facilities exceeding needs related to development project. 20 Whenever an applicant is required, as a condition of approval of a development permit, to 21 construct any facility or improvement(or a portion thereof) referenced in a resolution adopted 22 which is determined by the city to exceed the need therefor attributable to and reasonably related 23 to the given development project, a reimbursement agreement with the applicant and a credit 24 against the specific relevant fee which would otherwise be charged pursuant to this chapter on 25 the development project shall be offered. The credit shall be applied with respect to that portion 26 of the improvement or facility which is attributable to and reasonably related to the need therefor 27 caused by the development, and shall be determined, administered and processed in accordance 28 with and subject to the provisions of section 25.80.100. The amount to be reimbursed shall be 8 I that portion of the cost of the improvement or facility which exceeds the need therefor 2 attributable to and reasonably related to the given development. The reimbursement agreement 3 shall contain terms and conditions mutually agreeable to the developer and the city, and shall be 4 approved by the city council. Reimbursement shall be provided from fees which are deposited 5 into the relevant fund or funds by other applicants for development projects. 6 (c) Site-related improvements. Credit shall not be given for site-related improvements, 7 including, but not limited to, traffic signals, right-of-way dedications, or providing paved access 8 to the property, which are specifically required by the project in order to serve it and which do 9 not constitute facilities or improvements specified in the resolution referenced in Section 10 15.80.030 of this chapter. 11 (d) Determination of credit. The developer seeking credit and/or reimbursement for 12 construction of improvements or facilities, or dedication of land or rights-of-way, shall submit 13 such documentation, including without limitation, engineering drawings, specifications, and 14 construction cost estimates, and utilize such methods as may be appropriate and acceptable to the 15 director of community development to support the request for credit or reimbursement. The 16 director shall determine credit for construction of improvements or facilities based upon either 17 these cost estimates or upon alternative engineering criteria and construction cost estimates if the 18 director determines that such estimates submitted by the developer are either unreliable or 19 inaccurate. The director shall determine whether facilities or improvements are eligible for credit 20 or reimbursement. 21 (e) Time for Making Claim for Credit. Any claim for credit must be made no later than 22 the application for a building permit. Any claim not so made shall be deemed waived. 23 (f) Transferability of Credit--Council Approval. Credits shall not be transferable from 24 one project or development to another. 25 (g) Appeal of determinations of director of community development. Determinations 26 made by the director of community development pursuant to this section may be appealed to the 27 planning commission pursuant to section 25.16.150 within ten (10) days of the determination of 28 the director. 9 1 25.80.042 Use of Funds. 2 (a) Funds collected from public facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of- 3 £3 (1) Paying the actual or estimated costs of constructing or improving the public facilities 4 within the city or purchasing materials or equipment for the public facilities within the city to 5 which the specific fee or fees relate, including any required acquisition of land or rights-of-way 6 therefor; or 7 (2) Reimbursing the city for the development project's share of those public facilities 8 already constructed by the city or to reimburse the city for costs advanced, including without 9 limitation, administrative costs incurred with respect to a specific public facility project; or 10 (3) Reimbursing other developers who have constructed public facilities described in the 11 resolution, where those facilities were beyond those needed to mitigate the impact of the earlier 12 developer's project or projects. 13 (b). In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision 14 of public facilities for which public facilities impact fees may be expended, impact fees may be 15 used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities 16 provided are of the type to which the fees involved relate. 17 18 25.80.045 Conditions for Reimbursement. 19 (a) The city manager shall report to the city council once each fiscal year regarding any 20 portion of a fee remaining unexpended or uncommitted in an account five (5) or more years after 21 deposit and identify the purpose for which the fee was collected. The city council shall make 22 findings at least once every fifth year thereafter with respect to any portion of the fee remaining 23 unexpended or uncommitted in its account five (5) or more years after deposit of the fee, to 24 identify the purpose to which the fee is put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between 25 the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. 26 (b) A refund of unexpended or uncommitted fees for which a need cannot be 27 demonstrated along with accrued interest may be made to the current owner(s) of the 28 development project(s) on a prorated basis. The city manager may refund unexpended and 10 I uncommitted fees that have been found by the city council to be no longer needed, by direct 2 payment or by offsetting other obligations owed to the city by the current owners of the 3 development project. 4 (c) If the administrative costs of refunding unexpended and uncommitted revenues 5 collected pursuant to this section exceed the amount to be refunded, the city council, after a 6 public hearing for which notice has been published pursuant to Government Code Section 6061 7 and posted in three prominent places within the area of the development project, may determine 8 that the revenues shall be allocated for some other purpose for which the fees are collected 9 subject to this chapter that serve the project on which the fee was originally imposed. 10 11 25.80.080 Capital Improvement Plan. 12 A. The city may adopt or incorporate a capital improvement plan which indicates the 13 approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of costs for public facilities or 14 improvements to be financed with public facility impact fees. 15 B. The city manager shall annually submit the capital improvement plan to the city 16 council for adoption at a noticed public hearing. 17 C. The public facility impact fee schedule adopted by the city council by resolution shall 18 be annually reviewed by the council for consistency with the capital improvement plan, and any 19 necessary amendments shall be made by resolution of the city council. 20 21 25.80.090 Procedure for Adoption of Fees. 22 The adoption of public facility impact fees is a legislative act and shall be enacted by 23 resolution after a public hearing before the city council. 24 25 25.80.100 Fee Adjustments or Waiver. 26 (a) A developer of any project subject to the fee described in this chapter may apply to 27 the director of community development for reduction or adjustment to that fee, or a waiver of 28 that fee, based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship or nexus between the impacts of 11 I the development and either the amount of the fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed. 2 (b) The application shall be made in writing and filed with the director of community 3 development not later than: 4 (1) Twenty(20) days prior to the public hearing before the planning commission on the 5 development project application under this title, or 6 (2) If no hearing before the planning commission is required by this title, at the time of 7 the filing of the application for a development permit. 8 The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction, or 9 adjustment. 10 (c) The planning commission shall consider the application at a public hearing held 11 within sixty(60) days after the filing of the fee adjustment application. The decision of the 12 planning commission is subject to appeal to the city council pursuant to this title. If a reduction, 13 adjustment or waiver is granted, any change in use within the development project shall 14 invalidate the waiver, adjustment, or reduction of the fee. 15 16 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 17 18 19 Mayor 20 21 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18' day 22 of August, 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of by the following vote: 23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 25 26 City Clerk 27 28 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\developimpactfee.fin.wpd 12 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 25.80 WHEREAS, the City has adopted Chapter 25.80 that provides for public facilities impact fees for development projects that may occur in the City; and WHEREAS, the City retained the consulting firm of MuniFinancial to prepare a study to determine what impacts development projects have on the City's public facilities and what mitigation fees might serve to offset some of those impacts; and WHEREAS, the study provided the City with information on the nexus between development projects and impacts on City facilities, and set out a formula of fees that would serve to offset some of those impacts; and WHEREAS,the study was presented at public sessions of the City Council for review and public comment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on both the adoption of Chapter 25.80 and on the fees adopted by this Resolution and received testimony from all interested persons as required by Government Code sections 66016-66018; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with Government Code section 66018 and notice was also mailed pursuant to Government Code section 66016 to a parry that had earlier requested notice,although the request may have expired; and WHEREAS,the study and relevant materials were made available in advance of the public hearing in accordance with the Government Code; and WHEREAS,the Council affirms the findings made in its adoption of Chapter 25.80; and WHEREAS, the fees adopted by this Resolution are based on the study conducted by MuniFinancial, and the study and Chapter 25.80 accomplish the following: A. Identify the purpose of each public facilities,impact fee; and B. Identify the use to which each public facilities impact fee will be put; and C. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the use of each public facilities impact PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES RESOLUTION 1 fee and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed; and D. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities,services, and materials, and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed; and E. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fees and the costs of public facilities, services,and materials or portions thereof that are attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed; and WHEREAS,the projects and fee methodology identified in the study are consistent with the City's General Plan, Specific Plans, and Capital Improvement Plans, NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit A hereto is approved and adopted, including the definitions and exemptions contained in that schedule. 2. The fees contained in the attached Exhibit A shall become effective on November 2,2008. These fees shall apply to any development project that has not received final approval from the Burlingame Planning Commission by November 2, 2008. Any amendment to a project that is exempt from these fees shall,however,be subject to the imposition of the fees to the extent that the amendment adds dwelling units or square footage to the development that had been approved by the Planning Commission on or before November 2, 2008. Mayor I,Doris Mortensen,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 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEES RESOLUTION 2 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE SERVICE AREA SINGLE FAMILY MULTIFAMILY COMMERCIAL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL Calculation Basis Fee per Dwelling Fee per Dwelling Fee per 1,000 square Fee per 1,000 square Fee per 1,000 square Unit Unit feet feet feet General Facilities and $2,756 $1,636 $640 $930 $305 Equipment Libraries $2,283 $1,415 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Police $437 $259 $102 $147 $48 Parks and Recreation $590 $350 $118 $172 $56 Streets and Traffic $1,573 $1,105 $1,810 $7,285 $1,146 Fire $642 $381 $248 $360 $118 Storm Drainage $781 $391 $442 $717 1 $628 Administrative Refund Fee: An administrative fee of 3% of the refunded amount, but not to exceed $500, will be charged for processing a facilities impact fee refund. A. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the calculation and determination of fees under this Schedule: 1. "Commercial" means a building or structure, or a portion of a building or structure, that is used for activities involving sales or rental of any article, substance or commodity and the provision of all personal services. It does not include office uses, but does include places of assembly and hotels. September 2, 2008 Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule-I 2. "Dwelling unit" means one or more rooms connected together, constituting a separate independent housekeeping establishment for occupancy and physically separated from any other rooms or dwelling units which may be in the same structure, and containing sleeping facilities and one kitchen. 3. "Hotel"means an establishment consisting of a building or a group of attached or detached buildings containing lodging accommodations designed for use by transients, travelers or temporary guests for short term stays. Facilities provided may include maid service, desk service, meal and beverage service, meeting rooms, incidental merchandise sales, barber and beauty shops, in-room guest convenience areas without standard kitchen appliances such as cook tops, full-sized refrigerators and full-sized kitchen sink, and other incidental services and facilities. 4. "Industrial" means any industrial use, including, but not limited to, automotive repair and manufacturing, animal rescue facilities, wholesaling, storage, distribution and open air handling of materials and equipment, manufacturing and processing, wholesale sales, and publishing. "Industrial"means a use engaged in the manufacture of finished products or parts, including processing, fabrication, assembly, treatment,packaging, incidental storage, sales and distribution of such products. 5. "Multifamily"means a building, or portion thereof, used and designed as a residence for three (3) or more families or groups of persons living independently of each other with each unit having its own kitchen, including apartment houses and flats, but not including automobile courts, hotels, or motels. 6. "Office" means a building or structure, or portion of a building or structure, used for conducting the affairs of a business, profession, service, industry or government, and includes financial institutions, investment advisors or brokers, health services, and real estate offices. 7. "Single-family dwelling"means a residence building containing not more than two dwelling units. 8. "Square feet"means the square footage contained on all floors of a building or structure as measured to the outside surfaces of the exterior walls of the building or structure and including such areas as halls, stairways, covered porches and balconies, covered walkways and arcades, elevator shafts, service and mechanical equipment rooms and basements, cellars, and improved space in attic areas. i Fees are only charged for added square footage or added dwelling units. Replacement or remodeling does not trigger a fee under this schedule. September 2, 2008 Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule-2 B. Exemptions. The following developments are exempt from that payment of public facilities impact fees as specified: 1. Hotels that contain at least fifty(50) rooms that are located in the Shoreline (SL), Anza Area(AA), or Anza Point North(APN) Zoning Districts or in the Inner Bayshore (IB) Zoning District along Bayshore Highway are exempt from payment of any public facilities impact fees because of the transient occupancy taxes that the hotels contribute to the City. This exemption does not apply to extended stay hotels or residential hotels 2. Hotels that contain at least twenty(20)rooms that are located in the C-1 Zoning Districts because of the transient occupancy taxes that the hotels contribute to the City. This exemption does not apply to extended stay hotels or residential hotels 3. Developments located in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area are exempt from paying the Streets and Traffic public facilities impact fee because those developments are already subject to payment of a fee for similar purposes pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1751 and 1793. 4. Developments located in the Bayfront Specific Plan Area are exempt from paying the Streets and Traffic public facilities impact fee because those developments are already subject to payment of a fee for similar purposes pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 1151, 1305, and 1739. 5. Commercial, office, and industrial developments are exempt from paying the Library public facilities impact fee because the Council finds that these developments do not currently have a significant impact on the provision of City library services or facilities. C. Calculation and Determination The Director of Community Development will determine under what use or uses a development fits for purposes of calculating public facilities impact fees. The Director's determination and calculation is subject to appeal as provided in Section 25.16.150 within ten(10) days of the determination or calculation. September 2,2008 Public Facilities Impact Fee Schedule-3 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8a ITEM# MTG. 9/2/08 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBWTTED BY ' ---F�7 DATE: September 2, 2008 APPR FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY suBJEcT: INTRODUCE A MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINAN AMENDING SECTION 9.04.014 TO ALLOW FOR DOGS TO BE OFF-LEASH FOR THE AREAS OF THE UPPER FIELD AT CUERNAVACA PARK AND THE EASTERN MOST LAWN IN WASHINGTON PARK RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council accept the recommendation of the Parks &Recreation Commission and adopt a Municipal Code Ordinance amending section 9.04.014 to allow dogs to be off-leash in the areas of the upper field at Cuernavaca Park and the eastern most lawn in Washington Park before 7:30am each day by taking the following actions: A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Municipal Code section 9.04.014 states "No owner or possessor of any animal shall cause or permit it to do any of the following: (a) To be upon any public street, sidewalk,park, school ground, any public property or upon any unenclosed premises in a city unless the animal is properly licensed, if such licensing is necessary under this chapter, and under the control of the owner by being saddled, harassed, haltered or leashed by a substantial chain, lead rope or leash, which chain, lead rope or leash shall be continuously held by some competent person capable of controlling the animal." On May 5, 2008, at the recommendation of the Parks&Recreation Commission,the City Council waived the off-leash dog ordinance until 7:30am each day for areas of Washington and Cuernavaca parks for a 90 day trial period. This allowed dog owners to exercise their dogs in the morning hours without having to go to the Dog Exercise Park at Bayside Park. The Parks & Recreation Commission asked staff to report on the condition of the fields and any comments from the public during the trial period. at the August 2008 meeting, staff reported that there has been no negative impact on the lawns and that we have received minimal comments from the public. Staff received one phone call expressing concern from Mrs. Constance Cohen before the trial period began and a letter from Russ Cohen speaking against the program. At the July Parks &Recreation Commission meeting, four members of the Ray Park neighborhood spoke in favor of the program and asking if it could be started up at Ray Park. During the August 2008 meeting, the Commission unanimously recommended to the Council (Fisher moved, La Mariana second, 6-0 vote)to permanently allow dogs off-leash at the trial areas within Washington and Cuernavaca Parks before 7:30am each day. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: A. July 22,2008 Email from Russ Cohen B. Ordinance of the City of Burlingame amending section 9.04.014 to allow dogs to be off- leash in designated areas of Cuernavaca and Washington Parks Attachment"A" From: Russ Cohen [mailto:russ@russcohen.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 2:08 PM To: GRP-Council Cc: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy; MGR-Nantell, Jim; PARKS-Disco, Bob Subject: Washington Park off leash evaluation Honorable Mayor O'Mahony and Honorable Councilmembers, Some weeks ago, Washington Park became an off leash dog park during the early morning hours. There were many concerns brought to your attention. Although I did not speak publicly, I too was concerned. This past weekend, during Music In The Park, one of my concerns came to Tuition. As I enjoyed the afternoon, I watched my neighbor and her 3 year old and another 3 year old dance to the music on the grassy lawn of Washington Park. It wasn't until several minutes of joyous dancing went by that my neighbor realized that her daughter and her friend had been dancing in dog feces. It was between her toes and on her hands. Her little friend suffered the same fate. She used the public restroom at the Rec. Center to remove the debris as best she could. My neighbor, Ginger Penn, who agreed to let me pass on her name, was clearly frustrated by this experience. When you consider the success or failure of this trial dog park you should consider this experience as evidence that some of the concerns with this plan are real concerns. Feel free to contact me and if you wish to contact Ms Penn, her address is 609 Lexington Way, Burlingame and her phone number is: 650-343-1908. Sincerely, Russ Cohen 1 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 9.04.014 TO 2 ALLOW DOGS TO BE OFF-LEASH IN DESIGNATED AREAS OF CUERNAVACA AND WASHINGTON PARKS 4 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 5 Section 1. Section 9.04.014 formerly prohibited dogs from being off-leash in any City park. 6 The Parks & Recreation Commission recommended that the City allow dogs to be off-leash in 7 designated areas of Cuernavaca and Washington Parks early in the morning,and to do this on a trial 8 basis to see if the areas could be properly controlled and maintained. Ordinance No. 1822 allowed 9 the trial to occur,and the Commission is recommending that the allowance of dogs during limited 10 hours in Cuernavaca and Washington Parks continue on a more permanent basis. This ordinance 11 removes the expiration of the amendment adopted in Ordinance No. 1822 12 13 Section 2. Subsection 9.04.014 is amended to read as follows: 14 (a) To be upon any public street, sidewalk, park, school ground, any public property or 15 upon any unenclosed premises in a city unless the animal is properly licensed, if such licensing is 16 necessary under this chapter, and under the control of the owner by being saddled, harnessed, 17 haltered or leashed by a substantial chain,lead rope or leash,which chain, lead rope or leash shall 18 be continuously held by some competent person capable of controlling the animal. All cats are 19 exempt from this subsection. Notwithstanding this subsection, the owner or possessor of a dog 20 may permit a dog to be on the upper field at Cuernavaca Park or the easternmost lawn in 21 Washington Park between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7:30am each day without being harnessed, 22 haltered,or leashed,so long as the owner or possessor of the dog exercises control over the dog as 23 otherwise required by this chapter and chapter 10.55; 24 25 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty 26 days after its adoption. 27 Mayor 28 L 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 2 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 3 of ,2008,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4 day of , 2008, by the following vote: 5 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 City Clerk 9 U:\FILES\OR DIN ANOdogsinparks=perm.wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURL11 GAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b ti�oq; 9om' MTG. p �AATED 4UNE6 DATE August 26.2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI T BY DATE: August 26,2008 APP OVED B FROM: Jesus Nava,Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: Resolution Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible State Budget Decisions That Would "Borrow" Local Government,Redevelopment and Transportation Funds RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a resolution opposing fiscally irresponsible state budget decisions that would "borrow" local government, redevelopment and transportation funds. BACKGROUND: The Council has voiced its strong opposition to any taking of local government funds to balance the State budget in FY08-09. The City of Burlingame has been extremely disciplined in its financing of local government services and has a balanced budget. Any state raid of money will have an immediate impact on public safety, library services and street maintenance. The following service reductions have been presented to the Council: • $300,000—Eliminate Staffing for Fire Truck • $250,000—Eliminate Police Officer and part-time public safety support staff • $50,000 — Close the Burlingame Public Library on Sunday afternoons • $50,000 — Eliminate Library Asst. II position and reduce Reference Librarian hours • $40,000 — Reduce book binding/microform budget in Library • $269,000 - Eliminate Park&Recreation Clerk Typist; reduce Recreation Supervisor and part-time employees; eliminate Tree Maintenance Worker and reduce tree maintenance contract • $125,000—Public Works reductions in street and storm drainage maintenance • $54,000 — Eliminate Community Group Funding Grants • $100,000—Miscellaneous cuts to other General Fund departments The loss of Traffic Congestion Management funds will result in fewer improvements to local streets. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible State Budget Decisions That Would"Borrow"Local Government, Redevelopment and Transportation Funds Mayor's letter to Senator Yee and Assembly member Mullin City of Burlingame PowerPoint Presentation: "State Budget Threatens City of Burlingame Services" (August 18, 2008) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OPPOSING FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE STATE BUDGET DECISIONS THAT WOULD "BORROW" LOCAL GOVERNMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDS RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, on July 1, 2008, the State Legislature was unable to meet the State of California Constitutional budget deadline; and WHEREAS, both the Governor and the Legislative Budget Conference Committee have recommended balanced budgets without resorting to "loans" or seizures of local government property tax, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds; and WHEREAS, in 1952 the voters of California approved Article XVI, Section 16 of the California Constitution, providing for tax increment financing for community, and the voters never authorized the Legislature to take or "borrow" community redevelopment funds for state programs; and WHEREAS, in 2004 by a vote of 84% in favor, the voters of California approved a first Proposition I and sent a loud and unambiguous message to State leaders that they should stop the destructive and irresponsible practice of taking local government funds to finance the State budget and paper over the State deficit; and WHEREAS, in 2006 by a vote of 77% in favor,the voters of California approved a second Proposition 1 A, providing similar protections to transportation funding for state and local transportation projects, including important street maintenance and public transit programs; and WHEREAS, both ballot measures allow the Governor to declare a "severe state of fiscal hardship" and "borrow" these funds if they are repaid in three years with interest, but the Governor believes it would be irresponsible to "borrow" such funds because it would deepen the State's structural deficit and cripple local government and transportation services; and WHEREAS, the annual inability of the Legislature to meet its constitutional obligation to compromise on a balanced budget is not a "severe state of fiscal hardship" and cannot justify reductions in critical local services, community revitalization programs and infrastructure maintenance at a time when cities are struggling to balance their own budgets during this economic down turn; and 1 WHEREAS, cities, large and small, and counties, large and small, across the State have made the difficult day-to-day decisions necessary to keep their budgets balanced as required by the State Constitution; and WHEREAS, city investments in infrastructure, affordable housing and basic public safety and other community services create needed jobs and speed our economic recovery; and WHEREAS, the Legislature should balance the State budget with actual State revenues and respect the overwhelming voices of voters against using local property taxes, redevelopment tax increments, and transportation sales tax funds to fund the day-to-day operating cost of State programs; and WHEREAS, it is fiscally irresponsible to continue to paper over the State's structural deficit with more borrowing; and WHEREAS, it is time for the State of California to cut up its local government credit cards and deal with the budget deficit in a straightforward way—balance the State budget with state funds. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City of Burlingame hereby opposes any and all efforts by State government to "borrow" or seize local tax funds, redevelopment tax increment and transportation sales tax funds by the State government to finance State operations. 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution and communicate this Council's strong and unswerving position on this matter to our Legislators and the Governor along with an expression of our continued appreciation for the Governor's, and any committed legislators', steadfast opposition to further borrowing or seizure of local funds. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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_ ,2008,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 UZ BURUNGAME / •»+`i' � 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, BURLINGAME,CA 94010-3997 ` f www.burlingame.orq y ,-19DB:--2DDB L�^lL?lll[�n� (JClL//rOLOR ROSALIE O'MAHONY,MAYOR TEL: (650)558-7200 ANN KEIGHRAN,VICE MAYOR FAx: (650)342-8386 CATHY BAYLOCK,COUNCILMEMBER EMAIL: council�burlin4ame.00 TERRY NAGEL,COUNCILMEMBER JERRY DEAL,COUNCILMEMBER August 19,2008 The Honorable Gene Mullin California State Assembly, District 19 State Capitol, Room 2170 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: OPPOSITION TO STATE TAKING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS Dear Assembly Member Mullin, I write to you on behalf of the citizens of Burlingame to urge your strong to any taking of local government funds to balance the State budget. The City of Burlingame has been extremely disciplined in its financing of local government services and has a balanced budget. Any state raid of our money will have an immediate impact on public safety, library services and street maintenance. The following service reductions have been presented to the Council: • $300,000—Eliminate Staffing for Fire Truck • $250,000—Eliminate Police Officer and part-time public safety support staff • $50,000 — Close the Burlingame Public Library on Sunday afternoons • $50,000 — Eliminate Library Asst. II position and reduce Reference Librarian hours • $40,000 — Reduce book binding/inicroform budget in Library • $269,000- Eliminate Park&Recreation Clerk Typist;reduce Recreation Supervisor and part-time employees; eliminate Tree Maintenance Worker and reduce tree maintenance contract • $125,000—Public Works reductions in street and storm drainage maintenance • $54,000 — Eliminate Community Group Funding Grants • $100,000—Miscellaneous cuts to other General Fund departments In addition,the loss of Traffic Congestion Management funds will result in fewer improvements to local streets. The City Council requests that you "go on the record"to protect local government services. Any other position is a vote against your local constituents and the services they deserve. Sincerely, re,.0 -C) Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony Cc: Sara Ramirez, Chief of Staff ❑Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org 0 I - Cay - 1/ Y r BUR � c .r, f. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD,BURLINGAME,CA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org isoa-znoe TEL: (650)558-7200 ROSALIE 0'MAH0NY,MAYOR FAx: (650)342-8386 ANN KEIGHRAN,VICE MAYOR EMAIL: CouncilQblJHingame.org CATHY BAYLOCK,COUNCILMEMSER TERRY NAGEL,COUNCILMEMBER JERRY DEAL,COUNCILMEMBER August 19,2008 The Honorable Leland Y.Yee,Ph.D. California State Senator,District 8 State Capitol,Room 4048 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: OPPOSITION TO STATE TAKING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS Dear Senator Yee, I write to you on behalf of the citizens of Burlingame to urge your strong opposition to any taking of local government funds to balance the State budget. The City of Burlingame has been extremely disciplined in its financing of local government services and has a balanced budget. Any state raid of our money will have an immediate impact on public safety, library services and street maintenance. The following service reductions have been presented to the Council: • $300,000—Eliminate Staffing for Fire Truck • $250,000—Eliminate Police Officer and part-time public safety support staff • $50,000 — Close the Burlingame Public Library on Sunday afternoons • $50,000 — Eliminate Library Asst. II position and reduce Reference Librarian hours • $40,000 — Reduce book binding/microform budget in Library • $269,000 - Eliminate Park&Recreation Clerk Typist;reduce Recreation Supervisor and part-time employees; eliminate Tree Maintenance Worker and reduce tree maintenance contract • $125,000—Public Works reductions in street and storm drainage maintenance • $54,000 — Eliminate Community Group Funding Grants • $100,000—Miscellaneous cuts to other General Fund departments In addition,the loss of Traffic Congestion Management funds will result in fewer improvements to local streets. The City Council requests that you"go on the record"to protect local government services. Any other position is a vote against your local constituents and the services they deserve. Sincerely, Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony Cc: Janelle Beland, Chief of Staff ❑Register online with the City of Burlingame to receive regular City updates at www.Burlingame.org 0 •i..:;,;:r...I� AAVK OF.-..�cnwrw�crYi' AAlt.ta�tit,w.v t Wm�4F,dxY+p�*+�+'+(catiFnJu,,; yi! It's time M cut up the creditcards! State Budget Threatens City of Burlingame Services August 18, 2008 No State Raids! ! ! "Lawmakers need L to solve the budget Ci. crisis without relying on further borrowing that would destroylocal No state Raids , of services." Transportation$$ - League President, Jim Madaffer, San Diego 1 Local Fwtds at Risk in the FY08-09,Vtate Bridget Standoff to MFL17 Froc*r tv Tai* Proposition 42 RedevelovmmM Borrewiu Borre"ing Shift"I Take TOW FoamI'VIZI 1115 t�� ---------------------------*-----------------------*-----------------------*......... --------------i�;i7i.............. ............................................. 44 ....................... .343,tL4 Burlingame -$1,216,027 -$263,536 s1,479,563 .........................................1:St6,477.............. ................................. -119274 .................................................-n,6,6 -14,644................................... ------------------------------------------- ..............97.1379............. ----------:3333313... EAST PALO ALTO ....................................:A.IM............. .............. ........... FOSTER crrY ........................................ .............: .............. ........... .HALF MOON 8AY -273339 -11t7w - ............................................................................................................ HILLSHOROUsaH ..................................... ............. ...................................... �!��LO PAW .1,333,}a®........._.._.-=,•33n. 11 ----------**.................. ................:n�. MILL61�&kE' -;;wi96 "%2,m - !�. wi .........................I.................. ............. 5 ...............� ........... ..........wdv,iK . :ii;iii - 1147 :i ..................................... .................................... ................... PORTOLA VALLEY .................i.......... ............... ........... 40 --.................... ..... ' . S ..................................... � -j T, MMI 404.5, .. SAN6i2UN0-----------*........*---------------------- ..............i ................... .......... ..............................................................iiiiy SAN GARLOS ............................................!F,!!4 •263.271.............. ........... ....SAN MATEO ...... - -979,024 -433.137 -4373953 ...............*...... ------------- ....*----------- --------- SOl1TH SAN FRANCISCO -3324943 ------------------------------------------ --------------i-ii�;i i�--- ------4 --- j;j---------- -iijii ------------------------------------------ --- ---------------------------------- - :jjj�j.�jw -7,......4 ............................ ............. .................................. . ...:iI'm 81320 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL TIER REDUCTIONS (PREPARED FOR FY05-06) City Department Implemented Recommended Reductions Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Total City Attorney $ 1,700 $ $ $ 24.300 $ 24,300 City Clerk $ (37,336) $ $ $ 1,500 $ 1,500 City Council $ 7,125 $ 2,875 $ $ 9,250 $ 9,250 City Manager $ 8,100 $ - $ $ 19,319 $ 19,319 Finance $ 35,546 $ 33,163 $ 5,922 $ 12,761 $ 18,683 Fire $ 472,000 $ 170,000 $ 190,000 $ 110,000 $ 300,000 Human Resources $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ - $ 8,750 $ 8,750 Library $ 158,315 $ 39,675 $ 25,000 $ 145,080 $ 170,080 Non-Departmental $ 17,900 $ - $ 21,850 $ 34,870 $ 56,720 Parks&Recreation $ 311,055 $ 25,000 $ 159,000 $ 110,000 $ 269,000 Planning $ 172,536 $ - $ 5,000 $ 36,974 $ 41,974 Police&Communications $ 491,724 $ 80,839 $ 189,515 $ 9,000 $ 198,515 Public Works $ 215,597 $ 94,173 $ 9,000 $ 97,612 $ 106,612 .Admin&Info Services $ 29,000 1 $ -I $ 28,250, $ 2.875, $ 31.1251 Totaled $ 1,908,262 1 $ 470,7251 $ 633,537 1 $ 622,291 1 $ 1,265.828 2 Potential "Cuts" In Service • $300,000— Eliminate Staffing for Fire Truck • $250,000 — Eliminate Police Officer; part- time support staff and interns • $50,000— Close Library on Sunday afternoons • $50,000 — Eliminate Library Assistant II position and reduce Reference Librarian hours • $40,000 — Reduce book binding/microform Potential "Cuts" In Service • $269,000 — Parks & Rec: Eliminate Clerk Typist; Reduce Rec Supervisor and part- time employees; Eliminate Tree Maintenance Worker and reduce annual tree contract • $125,000— Public Works: Miscellaneous reductions in street and storm drainage maintenance; Reductions in Engineering expenses 3 Potential "Cuts" In Service • $54,000 — Eliminate Community Group Funding Grants • $100,000 — Miscellaneous cuts to other General Fund departments All Potential Cuts Mean Reducing Local Services to the Citizens of Burlingame Six Step Strategy 1. Ask community leaders to call legislators to oppose"loans" or raids - provide a concrete list of impacts to them; 2. Call your legislator and stress your city's opposition to "loans" or raids of local funds. Be specific about the impacts; 3. Call the Governor[(916)-445-2841] and thank him for his support and ask that he continue to oppose "loans"or raids of local government funding, transportation funding or redevelopment funds. Be specific about the impacts; 4. Let your local news media know what is being contemplated by state leaders and how it would hurt your city. Talk with editors about the legislature considering these fiscally irresponsible moves. 5. Invite community leaders and citizens to a town hall meeting and talk publicly about what legislators may do with specific impacts to your city. Notify the news media. Thank legislators who oppose borrowing or local government raids. 6. Schedule time on your next council meeting agenda to discuss this issue, its impact on your city, and your continued opposition. Ask your legislators for a commitment to fiscal responsibility and not to harming local services. 4 /(4/44ACITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 9a ITEM # MTG.ti�Dgp. ' DARTED JUNE 9D0 DATE September 2. 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL susnzt T BY DATE: September 2, 2008 AP OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director ' 558-7222 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL — 2008 ICMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Finance Director's travel to Richmond, VA to attend the 94`h Annual Conference of the International City-County Management Association (ICMA), September 20 — 24, 2008. Approval of this item will not have an impact on the City budget. Jesus will use his Professional Development Account to cover travel expenses. BACKGROUND: Jesus has been an active member of the ICMA since 1983. He currently serves on the following ICMA Boards and Committees. • ICMA's Representative to the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC) • International Hispanic Network of Public Administrators Board of Directors Jesus will be a speaker at three conference sessions: Working Together while Maintaining Identity How do you work together as a region or county, and still maintain your own community status and independence? Departments where this could be an issue include fire and police services, utility districts, and refuse collection. This session will offer strategies that have worked for other communities and could work for yours. Public versus Private: How Do You Do Both: How can you connect socially in your community even though you have a leadership role in the local government? What if you have a professional disagreement with the parent of your child's best friend? What if your partner has different priorities in the community than you do? What do you do if your partner is being questioned about your decisions at the grocery store? Are these obstacles keeping talented people out of the profession or preventing them from moving up the ladder? Come hear some strategies that your peers have developed to help them in similar situations. 2008 GASB Update: The mission of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is to establish and improve governmental accounting and financial reporting standards for state and local government. Public managers as users of financial information should be versed on changes affecting their comprehensive annual financial reports. From reporting standards for financial derivatives and fund balance to the implementation of pollution remediation obligations, this session is designed to bring the ICMA membership up to date on the GASB Technical Agenda. AGENDA ITEM NO: 9b BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: September 2,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: Ael"Ual4l _ DATE: August 26, 2008 APPROVED BY: FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director—(650) 558- 255 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL OF CHRIS DUNNING AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF PERMITS RELATED TO THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 1837 HUNT DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution memorializing its August 18, 2008 action denying the appeal of Chris Dunning, and upholding the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of an application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, side setback Variance, and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first- and second-story addition to an existing residence at 1837 Hunt Drive. BACKGROUND: The City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal Chris Dunning regarding the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice of his requests for planning permits related to proposed additions to his single-family residence at 1837 Hunt Drive on August 18, 2008. The attached resolution is intended to memorialize the Council's action denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial of the project and includes findings in support of the Council's action. Attachment: ■ Resolution Denying the Appeal of Chris Dunning and Upholding the Planning Commission's Denial without Prejudice RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME,DENYING THE APPEAL OF CHRIS DUNNING AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 23,2008,DENIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE,AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1837 HUNT DRIVE,ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL(R-1)ZONE RESOLVED,BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, on June 23, 2008, the Planning Commission denied without prejudice an application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit,Side Setback Variance, and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a first and second story addition to a single-family residence located at 1837 Hunt Drive(APN: 025-320-040), and owned by the Dunning Family Trust, 1837 Hunt Drive,Burlingame,California;and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's June 23, 2008 denial without prejudice was appealed by Chris Dunning,and the City Council conducted a public hearing on the appeal on August 18,2008; denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission's denial without prejudice. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The City Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission's June 23, 2008 denial without prejudice of the application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance, and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope,based upon the Council's finding that the proposed project will obstruct the existing distant and panoramic views from primary living areas within the residence on the adjacent property located at 1847 Hunt Drive. Further,there appear to be other design options that would permit an expansion of the residence in a manner that does not significantly impact views from the adjacent property. Additional findings for the City Council's action are as set forth in the minutes and recording of the City Council meeting of August 18,2008. Mayor I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of September, 2008 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk Agenda 9c Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: September 2, 2008 SUBMITTEDY ad APPROVED BY 4 & g TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 21 , 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 82200 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution awarding a construction contract to Casey Construction, Inc. for the Miscellaneous Storm Drainage Improvements project in the amount of $237,730. BACKGROUND: The project scope of work consists of installing new pipelines, storm drain inlets, and liners as well as replacing deteriorated curb and gutter at several locations throughout the City (see attached map). In addition, the work will include modification of existing storm drain structures and miscellaneous appurtenances. DISCUSSION: The project bids were opened on August 20, 2008 and five bids were received ranging from $237,730 to $442,600. Casey Construction, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder with its bid amount of $237,730 being 19.8% below the engineer's estimate of $297,475. Staff believes that increased availability of contractors and competition in the pipeline construction business has resulted in the bid amount being substantially lower than the engineer's estimate. Prior to bidding, staff had to delete work items from the project due to delays in obtaining permits from Caltrans and State Department of Fish and Game. It is anticipated that the City will obtain these permits in the next month. Upon receiving the permits, staff proposes to add work to the project in order to take advantage of the favorable bid prices and therefore request Council to authorize 25% contingency to the contract award amount. The construction is tentatively scheduled to begin before the end of September 2008 and is anticipated to be completed before the beginning of winter season. BUDGET IMPACT: Following are the estimated project expenditures: Construction contract $237,730 Contingency(25%) $ 59,432 Construction Design&Testing $ 25,000 Staff Administration 10,000 TOTAL $332,162 There are adequate funds available in the project budget to complete the project. EXHIBITS: Resolution,Bid Summary, Project Location Map Doug Bo .E. Senior Civil Engineer C:City Clerk,City Attorney, Finance Director,Casey Construction Inc. RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAINAGE PROJECT TO CASEY CONSTRUCTION CITY PROJECT NO. 82200 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY PROJECT 82200 - CONTRACT FOR MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAINAGE PROJECT WHEREAS, on AUGUST 20, 2008, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, CASEY CONSTRUCTION, submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $237,730. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of CASEY CONSTRUCTION, for said project in the amount of $237,730, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk s:\apublicworksdir\projects\resolutionaward Aug 20,2008 Burlingame--Miscelaneous Drainage Projects,CP 82200 Ken Selby Wilsey Ham Bid--Summary Proj 140-050 Contractor Total 900 Laguna Mills Cnyn Park Bernal Ave Capuchino Skyline Blvd Vancouver Ave 4 Inlets @ Arguello @ Sanchez @ Mills 3 Crossing s Broadway 1 Casey Construction,Inc $237,730 $20,900 $31,525 $32,950 $40,475 $62,100 $49,780 $237,730 2 Stoloski&Gonzalez,Inc $252,725 $23,500 $33,625 $31,475 $55,475 $56,050 $52,600 $252,725 3 J Howard Engineering,Inc $442,600 $44,000 $41,425 $82,625 $99,375 $108,075 $67,100 $442,600 4 Precision Engineering,Inc $383,000 $30,000 $34,000 $73,000 $87,000 $110,000 $49,000 $383,000 5 EPS,Inc $370,758 $33,696 $35,208 $53,433 $72,624 $105,381 $70,416 $370,758 (Express Plumbing) 6 Engineers Estimate $297,475 $23,350 $47,675 $39,500 $62,425 $69,750 $54,775 A�A A NO -41,1'le N MON ro WC10", MIN 'Cull r M%Waw-- Oil. rN010 A 9 "', F&M, om, PY." 1"71 WMW�. P AS. 5", WOO ®R NAN WWI WA 0 ll� all :IPA ma I�V-ro] CITY C BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 9d ITEM# �ticogq ,9�� MTG. (� p �R4TED JVNE� DATE 9/Z/OH TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: 8/25/08 v APPROV FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk BY � . Tel.No.: 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADDING ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY FOR PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUESTS RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to Council to consider the addition of administrative procedures for Public Records Act requests and approve a resolution to adopt procedures for such requests. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this policy is to provide City employees with instructions to handle requests for public records in an appropriate manner under the requirements of the California Public Records Act contained in Government Code Sections 6250 et seq. EXHIBITS: California Public Records Act Procedures; Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT PROCEDURES RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City Clerk has prepared procedures for responses to Public Records Act requests; and WHEREAS,these procedures will provide guidance and resources to City staff when requests for public records are received; and WHEREAS, these procedures will also inform the public on how responses will be made, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The California Public Records Act Procedures contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,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 2008,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 4 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT PROCEDURES Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to affirm the public's right to access City records,to provide legal and procedural guidelines for responding to requests for public records under the California Public Records Act, and to provide consistency within the City in how requests for public records are handled. Section 2. Policy. The public's right to access information concerning the conduct of the people's business is a right under the California Constitution and Public Records Act. A record should not be withheld from disclosure unless it is exempt under applicable laws,or the public interest served by not making the record public clearly outweighs the public interest served by disclosure of the record. The California Public Records Act permits local agencies to adopt regulations stating the procedures to be followed when making their records available to the public.The City of Burlingame desires to establish a formal written policy affirming the public's right to access City of Burlingame records and to set forth the procedures by which such records will be made available to the public.The City of Burlingame is mindful of the constitutional right of privacy accorded to individuals and it is the intent of the City to adopt a policy that strikes an appropriate balance between the objectives of open government and the individual's right of privacy. Remember that the Public Records Act does not require the City to create documents,but only to make existing documents available for inspection or copying. There are some instances where a document must be kept confidential,but some of the statistical information,such as crime reports, should and must be made available; in that case, creation of a document with the statistics or a summary may be required, and you should promptly consult the City Attorney on the proper response. Section 3. Records Available for Inspection and Copying Records available for inspection and copying include any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public's business that is prepared,owned,used,or retained by the City,regardless of the physical form and characteristics. The records do not have to be written but may be in another format that contains information such as computer tape or disc or video or audio recording. "Writing"includes any handwriting,typewriting,printing,Photostatting,photographing,and every other means of recording upon any form of communication or representation such as letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, as well as all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints,and electronic mail. Subd.1 Locating and Identifying Records Public records are open to inspection at all times during regular City business hours.The City does not maintain a centralized record keeping system, other than certain documents routinely maintained by the Office of the City Clerk.Each of the City's individual departments maintains and has custody of records and information relating to the responsibilities and work performed by the particular department. Information identifying the City's Departments and Department contacts is available on the City's website at www.burlingame.org. September 2008 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy Subd. 2 Department Records Coordinator Each Department shall designate a person or persons, who will be responsible for responding to requests for records and coordinating the response with other City Departments, when appropriate. The Department representative shall also, to the extent reasonably practicable, assist the public in making focused and effective requests for records and information. In order to accomplish this the representative shall: (1) assist the member of the public with identification of records and information that are responsive to the request or the purpose of the request, if known; (2) describe the information technology and physical location in which the records exist; and (3) provide suggestions for overcoming any practical basis for denying the request. Subd. 3. Making a Request for Records There is no specific form that must be used to request records, nor is there any language that must be used when making a request. Requests may be made orally or in writing; either in person, through the mail, via e-mail or over the telephone. The request, however, should contain a reasonable description of the desired records in order to expedite processing of the request. Subd. 4. Form of Records Provided Records shall be made available in their original form or by a true and correct copy. Audio, photographic and computer data, or any other such records, shall be exact replicas unless the Department determines it is impracticable to provide exact replicas. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided to the public after deletion of portions that are deemed exempt from disclosure. Subd. 5. Time for Response Upon receipt of a written or oral request for records, the City shall make the records promptly available to the requestor. In cases where the records are not readily identifiable or accessible, or additional time is needed to determine whether the request in whole or in part seeks copies of disclosable records, the City will have ten (10) calendar days to provide its determination. The ten (10)day time period shall be calculated from the date the request is received. In unusual circumstances, the City may extend its time to respond by an additional fourteen (14) calendar days. Should this occur, the City will inform the requestor in writing of the extension within the initial ten (10) day period, setting forth the reasons for the extension, along with the estimated date of the City's further response. Unusual circumstances permitting the extension of time are limited to: (1) the need to search for and collect the requested records from facilities separate from the office processing the request; (2) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that have been asked for in a single request; (3) the need for consultation with another department or another agency that has a substantial interest in the response to the request; and/or (4) the need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Subd. 6. Denial of Request September 2008 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy If a written request for information is denied in whole or in part, the denial shall be in writing and shall contain the explicit reasons for denial of access to the subject records, as well as the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. Section 4 Fees and Charges In most situations, the City will not charge fees to cover the time and costs incurred in searching for, locating or collecting records. The City, however, may charge for the actual costs of duplicating paper copies of records and postage, consistent with the amounts set forth in City's Schedule of Fees. The City may also charge for duplication costs in another medium in accordance with the amounts set forth in the Schedule of Fees (e.g. copying video or cassette tapes). Requestors of electronic records shall pay for production costs, including the cost to construct the record and the cost of programming and computer services necessary to produce the copy if the request would require the production of a record that is otherwise only produced at regularly scheduled intervals, or the request would require data compilation, extraction, or programming to produce the record. Section 6 Department Procedures Each City Department shall establish procedures to be followed when making its records available for public inspection consistent with the provisions set forth below. If any question exists as to whether any record, or portion of any record, is exempt from disclosure, it is the responsibility of the head of the Department, or his or her designee, to contact the City Attorney promptly within the time frame for responding to a public records request for advice. Subd. 1 Department Representatives Each Department shall designate a person or persons, who will be responsible for responding to requests for records and coordinating the response with other City Departments, when appropriate. Departments that have more than one division within the Department shall assign a person or persons who will be responsible for coordinating and responding to requests for records and information that overlap different divisions within the Department. Subd. 2 Department Coordination If a request seeks information from more than one department, the request shall be forwarded to the designated representative in the City Manager's Office and the representative of all other interested departments. The City Manager's representative will coordinate and respond to the request with the assistance of each of the Department representatives. If a request for records is directed to a department that does not maintain or have custody of the records, then the representative shall promptly attempt to identify the appropriate department and forward the request to the responsible department for preparation of a response. In the event a request is forwarded to another department for a response, the requestor shall be given notice of the referral to another department and contact information for the Department who will be preparing the response. Section 7 Coordination with the City Attorney's Office September 2008 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy Requests that are related to pending or potential litigation shall be coordinated with the City Attorney's Office. Questions regarding the Public Records Act or any documents that may not be subject to disclosure shall promptly be forwarded to the City Attorney's Office for review. The City Attorney's Office will advise as soon as reasonably possible on which documents are subject to disclosure and/or exemption, and the Department which received the original request shall complete the response based on the direction from the City Attorney's Office. Section 8 Steps for Responding to Requests for Records Upon receiving a request for records, whether orally or in writing, the Department representative shall promptly respond to the request. For example, if a request is made in person at the City Clerk's Office for a copy of a City Council agenda maintained at the City Clerk's Office, the requested agenda should be made available to the requestor at the time of the request. If a particular request requires research as to the existence of the requested record and/or its location, then the Department representative shall promptly begin researching the request and shall immediately note his or her calendar, with the last date to respond to the request. This date shall not exceed ten (10) calendar days from the date the request is received. Subdivision 1. Extension to Respond In unusual circumstances, the City may extend its time to respond by an additional fourteen (14) calendar days. The circumstances permitting an extension of time are limited to: (1) the need to search for, collect the requested records from facilities separate from the office processing the request; (2) the need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records that have been asked for in a single request; (3) the need for consultation with another department or another agency that has a substantial interest in the response to the request; and/or (4) the need to compile data, to write programming language or a computer program, or to construct a computer report to extract data. Should one or more of these circumstances arise, the Department representative will inform the requestor in writing of the extension within the initial ten (10) day period, setting forth the reasons for the extension, along with the expected date of the City's further response. Any questions about extending the initial ten (10) day time to respond to requests should be directed to the City Attorney's Office. Records shall be available for review and inspection during regular City business hours. Subd. 2 No Requirement to Create New Records September 2008 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy If a request for records seeks the production of records or documents that are not in existence at the time the request is made, the City is not obligated to create a document in order to respond to the request. Section 9 Common Exemptions From Disclosure There are certain categories of documents that are generally not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. These include, but are not limited to: (1) preliminary drafts of certain documents that are not retained by the City in the ordinary course of business; (2) records related to pending litigation; (3) attorney-client communications; (4) personnel records, medical information, or other similar records the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; (5) corporate, financial and proprietary information, including trade secrets; and (6) records protected by State or Federal law. If the Department (after consultation with the City Attorney's Office when appropriate or when the exemption is not clear) determines that the records sought in a written request for records are not subject to disclosure either in whole or in part, then the Department shall advise the requestor in writing that the records will not be made available and include the reasons why access is being denied, as well as the names and titles or positions of each person responsible for the denial. Section 10 Responding to Requests for Particular Documents The following procedures shall apply when responding to requests for these particular categories of documents: Subd. 1 Disclosure of Preliminary Drafts Preliminary drafts of documents kept in the ordinary course of business, including drafts of agreements, which are kept and preserved after final action has been taken, shall be disclosed if requested. Subd. 2 Disclosure of Litigation Materials When litigation in which the City is a party is finally adjudicated or otherwise settled, records of communications between the City and the adverse party in the litigation shall be subject to disclosure including the text and terms of any settlement agreement between the parties. Such disclosure shall not apply to records that are otherwise privileged under federal or state law, such as attomey-client communications, or to records sealed by the court or where disclosure is otherwise limited by the court. Subd. 3 Disclosure of Information Relating to Contracts. Bids and Proposals September 2008 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy Records of contractors' bids shall be available for inspection immediately following the opening of bids. Responses to Requests for Proposals or Requests for Qualifications/Quotations and similar submittals shall be regarded as public records and are available for inspection after City staffs recommendation has been made public, unless there are elements in the proposal which are defined by the proposer as business or trade secrets and plainly marked as "Confidential," Trade Secret,' or "Proprietary." Although trade secret information may be exempt from disclosure, the City typically is not in a position to establish whether the information that a proposer has submitted is a trade secret. If a request is made for information marked "Confidential," "Trade Secret," or "Proprietary," the City will provide the proposer who submitted the information with reasonable notice to allow the proposer to seek protection from disclosure by a court or government agency of competent jurisdiction. When an individual, firm or organization is awarded a contract, information including financial information which was submitted to the City during the bid or proposal process from all proposers will be subject to disclosure unless otherwise exempt. Subd. 4 Budgetary Information Budgetary information including bills or records of payments, which are submitted to the City Council or other body having budgetary authority, shall be subject to disclosure unless the record is confidential or privileged under State or Federal law. Subd. 5 Personal Information Requests for records and documents containing personal information such as home addresses, home telephone numbers, financial matters, or employment history should be reviewed on a case by case basis with the City Attorney's Office. The City may respond to requests for personal information in one or more of the following ways: 1) delete or redact those portions of the records that include personal information and make the remaining portion of the record available for inspection if the remaining portion of the record is not otherwise exempt from disclosure; 2) notify the party whose personal information is being sought and provide the party with the opportunity to initiate legal proceedings or other appropriate process to prevent the release of such information; 3) seek a judicial determination as to whether or not the requested personal information should be disclosed; or 4) disclose the information where permitted, allowed or compelled to do so. Social Security numbers and medical information will not be disclosed under a public records request and must be redacted. Subd. 6 Complaints and Complaint Information Information regarding complaints shall be made available. However, specific information about complainants shall be redacted from any record furnished if necessary in order to protect the privacy rights and safety of individuals making complaints and to protect an individual's right to petition government for redress of grievances. Subd. 7 Electronic Mail September 2008 City of Burlingame Administrative Policy E-mail shall be treated the same as other written documents. If the e-mail is kept in the ordinary course of business, it is a public record unless it falls within some exception to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Section 11 No Change To Records Retention Schedule This procedure for disclosure of public records does not obligate City departments to retain documents beyond the period of time designated for the department in the City's record retention policy. In the event a request for records is received prior to its destruction under the City's record retention policy, the requested records will be provided. September 2008 4qn,-nm�oat o� STAFF REPORT MAGENDA13a ITEM #DATE9/2/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEDBY i\�A DATE: August 28. 2008 APPROVE FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY /Xj SUBJECT: City Clerk Vacancy RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council appoint a subcommittee to work with the City Manager and Human Resources Director to develop a recommended process for filling the upcoming City Clerk vacancy. BACKGROUND: City Clerk Doris Mortensen has announced her intention to retire from the City of Burlingame effective December 13, 2008. Outgoing City Attorney Larry Anderson prepared the attached memorandum to the Mayor and Council explaining the Council's options regarding filling the City Clerk position. The City Manager would like Council to appoint a subcommittee to work with the City Manager and Human Resources Director to develop a recommendation for Council's approval on the process to fill the City Clerk position. BUDGET IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. August 28, 2008 Memorandum from City Attorney Larry Anderson M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ATTORNEY DATE: August 28, 2008 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney RE : Vacancy in City Clerk Position The retirement of Doris Mortensen in December of this year triggers the vacancy procedure for an elective office set by the Government Code. Government Code § 36512(b) sets the general rule: (b)If a vacancy occurs in an elective office provided for in this chapter, the council shall, within 30 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy. The special election shall be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days from the call of the special election. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent. In other words,the Council has two choices to be made within 30 days of Doris' retirement date— appoint a person to fill the vacancy for the balance of the term,or calla special election. The special election date has to match a regularly established election date. The date that falls within the 114 days is the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March in 2009, which would be March 3, 2009 (Election Code § 1000). A mail-in election for City office vacancy does not appear to be possible under Election Code § 4000. Finally,the person appointed or elected to the vacant office would hold office until November 2009, when Doris' term expires. BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, June 12, 2008 Commissioners Present: Dan Conway, Chair Michael Bohnert, Vice Chair Jerry McDonnell Mark Noworolski Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive 1. CALL TO ORDER. 6:59 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS None 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of May 8, 2008 as submitted. M/S/C: Warden/Bohnert; 4/0/1 (Noworolski 7:06 pm) 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Horak suggested that the City consider the use of 2-wheel or 3-wheel standup Parking Enforcement vehicles as a way to reduce vehicle costs such as the City of Los Altos. In addition to cost savings, these vehicles offer zero pollution. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS None. 8. INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 Commission Appeals Process—Distribution of Final Version Mr. Chou distributed the final version of the Commission Appeal Process policy for the record. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 Selective Enforcement List—Report Sergeant Williams distributed the current Selective Enforcement list and reviewed the results. Sergeant Williams reported that the Residential Parking Permit Pilot Program launched on June 2, 2008 for the Bellevue/Occidental areas. He stated that, to date, five permits have been issued. Flyers were distributed to residents in the affected areas. Sergeant Williams will provide a sample placard at the next meeting. Discussion occurred regarding the number of vehicular accidents at Ray Drive and EI Camino Real intersection. Mr. Chou said that options to consider would need consultation with Caltrans since this intersection was within their jurisdiction. Some possible options were introduced such as signal phasing and timing changes. Mr.Chou said that he would meet with Caltrans and will report back. 8.3 Commissioners'Comments and Concerns 8.3.1 Traffic&Parking Technology Seminar Series—Discussion Chair Conway reported that due to schedule conflicts a seminar date could not be set for last month and suggested that a sub-committee be formed to coordinate future seminars. Chair Conway and Commissioners Bohnert would serve on the sub-committee. 8.3.2 Miscellaneous Comments and Concerns Commissioner Warden requested Mr. Chou advise Caltrans that the 450 green arrow on southbound EI Camino Real and Broadway does not exist. Commissioner Warden suggested that the City have a ribbon cutting kickoff for the opening of the pedestrian crossing over Broadway. Commissioner Warden recommended that the idea of raising parking meter rates on Broadway no longer be explored in light of the current economy. Mr. Chou stated that staff had a brief discussion and also came to the same conclusion. Commissioner Warden reported that Bridges Tire & Wheel located at California Drive and Carmelita Avenue has been running an air hose across Carmelita from one shop to its other with both sidewalks marked with orange cones. Mr. Chou stated that Code Enforcement Office Sue Harris and he visited the site and was informed that PG&E was not providing power to one building; and, that the business owner was having difficulty getting PG&E out to the site. It was also noted that Bridges Tire & Wheel is also parking customer vehicles on the surrounding streets causing congestion. Commissioner Warden stated that this issue has come up in the past with various automobile related businesses and stated the need to draft an ordinance to address the amount of parking necessary that businesses should provide to adequately run their business. Commissioner Warden will collaborate with Chair Conway and will draft a letter from the Commission to Council with the recommendation. 9. COMMUNICATIONS 9.1 Letter from Rudy Horak on computerized parking meter devices in Redwood City Chair Conway noted the article on Redwood City meter changes, which was provided by Mr. Horak. Commissioner Noworolski commented that the multi-space meters have been very successful in many cities; however, Redwood City has had some problems with their vendor. 9.2 Communication from Marci Benson to Commission regarding pedestrian safety at Devereux and Bernal Chair Conway stated that an email was received from Marci Benson regarding Bernal and Devereaux Street safety. Commissioner Warden left Ms. Benson a voicemail advising her that her concern would be on the agenda for this evening and that he had replied to her email. Chair Conway suggested that warrants be run on this area in September. Commissioner Warden will communicate this to Ms. Benson. 10.COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Commissioner Bohnert reported that B/PAC met and discussed how the pedestrian overcrossing at Broadway would connect to Carolan Avenue. The committee also brainstormed on bike routes on Carolan Avenue and narrowed it down to three different plans. 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports Chair Conway reported that the Centennial Gala was a great event. 11.FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 11.1 Taxicab Permit Program Mr. Chou reported that former Commissioner Gene Condon was approached by local taxi companies regarding the number of illegal "gypsy" cabs operating in the city. Commissioner Warden requested that fellow commissioners take some time and observe these unlicensed cabs which are regularly staged by the alleyway north of Sizzler Restaurant on Bayshore Highway. Sergeant Williams stated that licensed cabs can be identified by a sticker displayed on the rear window on the lower right corner. 11.2 Discussion of pedestrian safety at Devereux and Bernal 12.ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION AUGUST 7, 2008 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Vice Chair McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair McQuaide, Benson, Ellis, and Wright Absent: Chairperson Carney, Commissioners Grandcolas and Lahey Staff: Interim Parks Superintendent Foell and Admin. Secretary Harvey Guests: Jennifer Pfaff(615 Bayswater) and Pat Giorni (1445 Balboa) MINUTES — The minutes of the June 5, 2008 Commission meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Susan and Larry Raffo, 1309 Castillo Avenue, informing them of the Commission's decision to deny their appeal for the removal of a private Redwood tree in the back yard of 2504 Easton Drive. Letter to property owners at 17 Clarendon Rd., 18 Clarendon Rd., 749 Sequoia Avenue (SM), 14 Bloomfield Rd., 18 Bloomfield Rd., 10 Bloomfield Rd., and 15 Clarendon Rd., informing them of the Commission's decision to uphold the City Arborist's denial to remove the private Live Oak tree at 15 Clarendon Road. Letter to Elizabeth Moore and Oger Owner from the Burlingame Beautification Commission, congratulating them for the landscape design of their business, Solo Bambini, and for winning the 2008 Business Landscape Award. Staff Report dated August 7, 2008 from Superintendent Foell and Supervisor Disco regarding: Consideration of Commission and Council recommendations for Street Tree policy changes: Official Street Tree Lists, Establishment of Themed Streets and Corresponding Policies, with attached lists. FROM THE FLOOR There was no business from the floor. OLD BUSINESS Business Landscape Award Update Commissioner Wright noted that ' Solo Bambini' has been notified that they are the recipients of the 2008 Business Landscape Award and will be presented with the award at the September 15th Council meeting. She and Dale Perkins (local artist) have been meeting since January to discuss the type of sketch or rendering of the winning business as well as other locations to display the art work. She explained that Mr. Perkins first photographed `Solo Bambini' and from the photo created a preliminary water color rendering as well as a note card of the winning business. Commissioner Wright then introduced Dale Perkins to the Commission. Dale Perkins presented the preliminary water color rendering to the Commission and recommended that along with the name of the winning business, acknowledgment of the Commissioners names as well as that of the Council and Staff, be included on a placard at the bottom of the framed art work. Following the Commissions review of the preliminary work and after making some minor suggestions, the Commission thanked Dale for being so kind to have shared his art work with the community. Superintendent Foell also thanked Dale and asked that when the revisions are completed, Director Schwartz have an opportunity to view the art work and acknowledgment placard for final approval. The Commission further discussed providing an article with regard to the Business Landscape Award for the newspapers, a-news, etc. Commissioner McQuaide volunteered to write the article and staff will submit to local newspapers and a-news. Commissioner Wright will contact Director Schwartz to discuss protocol for the award presentation at the September 15th Council meeting as well as other locations to display the art of the winning business i.e., City Hall and City Libraries. 1 OLD BUSINESS-(Contd.)- Consideration of Commission and Council Recommendations for Street Tree Policy Changes Approval of Official Street Tree Lists/Draft List of"Themed" Blocks/Draft of New "Themed" Block Policy Superintendent Foell reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission with regard to the Commissions recommendations to Council for policy changes to the street tree program and submitted the following documents: • Revisions to Official Street Tree lists to provide the largest canopied trees • Themed (same species) blocks listed and identified by staff. 120 "Themed Blocks" throughout City; 92 "Themed Blocks"to be replaced with same existing species; 28 "Themed Blocks"to be replaced with tall, grand, canopied species to be determined and selected by staff,with the intent of keeping the overall theme of the block i.e.,when removal is necessary,Liquidambars would be replaced with Red Maples Superintendent Foell noted that the species that will no longer be planted on the 28 "Themed Blocks", are trees that have shown to be troublesome in the urban landscape. The Commission reviewed the changes on the Official Street Tree lists. Commissioner Wright commended staff and stated that the lists are well organized and are easy to understand. Interim Superintendent Foell reviewed the "Themed Streets"list with the Commission and noted that staff clarified the one recommendation changed by the Commission at the June meeting regarding property owners on a block being able to petition to establish their block be a"themed block": • Any homeowner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 2/3 of the homeowners on the block • Forms for the 'Petition'to be provided by Parks &Recreation Department • Petitions shall be forwarded for appeal to the Beautification Commission for the establishment of a new "themed"block • Public hearing will be set by Commission and notification will be sent by staff to all homeowners on block • If approved, staff to determine species theme in collaboration with homeowners • Selected species will replace existing trees only when removal of existing tree is necessary The Commission reviewed the "Themed Streets/Blocks" list and commended staff on the time spent and the good job. Pat Giorni thought the changes captured the essence of the idea of maintaining the infrastructure and aesthetics while providing opportunity for citizens to comment with appropriate appeal procedures in place and will eventually help to restore the urban forest. Jennifer Pfaff asked questions and made some suggested changes to the official street tree lists including providing logo's or notations on the lists to encourage property owners to select"preferred"larger canopied trees. Superintendent Foell requested that the Commission review the "themed" streets/blocks list for approval at the September 4, 2008 meeting; but, asked the Commission to approve the recent changes to the Official Street Tree lists. Commissioner Ellis moved that the changes and revisions to the four Official Street Tree lists be approved, with notations or symbols to be included to identify "preferred" trees; seconded Wright. Motion carried 4 — 0 — 3 absent/Carney, Grandcolas, and Lahey. Commissioner Benson commended staff, and stated that Greg Foell and Bob Disco did a great job. REPORTS— Secretary Harvey Secretary Harvey reviewed with the Commission Gifts to an Agency—FPPC Form 801 —Regulation 18944.2 with reference to receiving gifts as an appointed or elected City official. 2 +REPORTS—(Contd.) Interim Superintendent's Report Superintendent Foell reported that the young trees planted by CalTrans on El Camino were stressed due to lack of water by CalTrans crew. He directed the tree crew to water the trees so they would not die. Superintendent Foell noted that staff would continue to work with CalTrans representatives with regard to the watering issues. Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Ellis reported that the statewide Shoreline cleanup will be on September 20`h at 8:30 AM. The public is encouraged to signup at the Embassy Suites Hotel where donuts and coffee will be served. Following the Shoreline cleanup a raffle will be held and participants will be provided lunch. Commissioner Benson Commissioner Benson reported on some of her most recent activities: • Renovated the planter on the south side of Burlingame Avenue at California Drive; the CBB provided the funding • Trimmed and weeded the south side of downtown Burlingame Avenue • Assisted the Friends of Mills Canyon with the elimination of the Acacia in the canyon • Bagged up trash on the 1600 and 1700 blocks of El Camino and on the Westside from Adeline Drive to Peninsula Hospital Commissioner Benson expressed kudos to Bob Disco and Leadworker Jack MacDonald for the Parks crew work on completion of the Washington Park Fragrance Garden and the planting of wonderful fragrant plants. She concluded that the garden renovation has been completed and is now looking much nicer. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM. Respectfully submitted, Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 3 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L.Van Etten r Chief of Police August 13, 2008 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Police Department statistics and highlights for the month of July,2008 DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS: -One new officer continues in our field training program -Two officers are currently in the 6 month police academy and will graduate in August -Two additional new recruit officers are being hired and will attend the police academy in September -One sworn officer(10 months) and one dispatcher(21 months) continue on long-term disability -Two other sworn officers are also off due to injuries,but are assigned temporary modified duty -A second donated K-9 is currently deployed and working weekend nights; BPD now has 3 K-9's -Neighborhood Watch presentations continue -A department training plan(elevating training)for the 2008/2009 FY continues -Citizen crime identification system "Crimereports.com"is in place -Gang Task Force assignments,parolee training and monitoring continues -Total reported crime in Burlingame thru July is down compared to last year(same time) TRAFFIC MATTERS: -Moving citations have practically tripled from the same time last year(selective enforcement) -Parking citation totals continue to be down, due in part to our replacing of 2 recent PEO positions -A second motorcycle officer is currently assigned to motorcycle duty -Citizen Speed Watch has been delayed, due to limited interest by the public in the Winchester area -Red Light photo enforcement is about to begin at ECR and Broadway -The pilot daytime parking permit program has begun and continues MONTHLY STATISTICS: -Remember that the monthly police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the police department report remember to consider the actual numbers of various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Kindly feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Chief Jack Van Etten Burlingame Police Dep ent 1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551 -Burlingame,California 94011-0551 -(650)777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130 MEMORANDUM To: All Patrol Personnel From: Sgt. Williams Date: 08/08/08 Subject: Selective Enforcement As time permits, please advise your teams to attempt selective enforcement in the listed areas: Location Violation Description Time of offense Date Reported Primrose Rd. 21950 VC yield to ped Afternoon 08/08/08 (@ Library) Rollins Rd. 22350 VC Speeding All hours 07/10/08 (South end) Magnolia 22350 VC Speeding All hours 07/07/08 Rivera 22350 VC Speeding All hours 07/01/08 Dufferin 22350 VC Speeding Commute hours 06/20/08 Trousdale/ 22450 VC Stop sign Morning hours 05/27/08 Skyline Adeline Dr 22350 VC/ Speeding/ Commute hours 05/01/08 (1900 blk) 22450 VC Stop sign Bayswater 22350 VC Speeding Commute hours 05/01/08 Carmelita 22350 VC Speeding All hours 04/17/08 Lincoln Ave. 22350 VC Speeding Commute hours 04/17/08 Blgm Av/Cal 21950 VC yield to ped Morning hours 03/13/08 Howard/Prim 22450 VC Stop sign All hours 03/13/08 Bayshore Bl 22350/21950VC Speed/ped viol Morning commute 02/19/08 Blgm Ave. 21950 VC yield to ped Daytime hours 02/01/08 Bloomfield 22350 VC Speeding Evening hours 12/26/07 Calif. Dr. 22350 VC Speeding Commute hours 12/13/07 t 08-12-08 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: JULY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification........... ......... Current Year. . YTD.. . YTD... Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 3 3 0 0.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 2 1 4 7 -3 -42.86 Robbery Knife 0 0 3 2 1 50.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Robbery Strong-Arm 2 0 7 4 3 75.00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 1 0 2 0 2 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 3 1 9 10 -1 -10.00 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 2 1 7 5 2 40.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 10 13 68 102 -34 -33.33 Burglary - Forcible Entry 1 3 30 19 11 57.89 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 6 8 45 47 -2 -4.26 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 2 0 6 0 6 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 1 0 1 Larceny Shoplifting 0 3 11 21 -10. -47.62 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 23 25 145 125 20 16.00 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 3 11 59 85 -26 -30.59 Larceny Bicycles 5 1 15 11 4 36.36 Larceny From Building 2 2 42 49 -7 -14.29 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 1 0 10 -10 -100.00 Larceny All Other 6 12 46 55 -9 -16.36 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 7 7 33 45 -12 -26.67 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 1 9 2 7 350.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 4 1 3 300.00 ------ ------ ------ ------ 76 91 549 605 76 91 549 605 )8-12-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD. . . Change 3 Change x.11 Other Offenses 43 44 266 211 55 26.07 animal Abuse 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Orson 0 2 4 6 -2 -33.33 assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 3icycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 3igamy 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Threat 0 0 1 0 1 3ribery 0 0 0 0 0 heck Offenses 0 0 3 4 -1 -25.00 2hild Neglect/prot custody 6 8 32 49 -17 -34.69 �omputer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 2onspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 ::redit. Card Offenses 1 1 3 3 0 0.00 :!ruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 2urfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Death Investigation 1 3 16 16 0 0.00 Disorderly Conduct 2 0 7 1 6 600.00 Driver's License violations 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 Driving Under the Influence 5 4 57 48 9 18.75 Drug Abuse Violations 1 7 13 33 -20 -60.61 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 4 6 26 43 -17 -39.53 Embezzlement 1 0 4 2 2 100.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 False Police Reports 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 2 34 17 17 100.00 Found Property 5 9 42 41 1 2.44 Fraud 7 3 20 19 1 5.26 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 1 2 11 40 -29 -72.50 00-12-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification. ......... .... . . .... Current Year.. YTD. .. YTD... Change t Change Hit and Run Accidents 6 6 26 28 -2 -7.14 Impersonation 0 0 2 7 -5 -71.43 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 3 2 7 -5 -71.43 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 1 0 1 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Liquor Laws 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 0 2 10 19 -9 -47.37 Mental Health Cases 8 8 41 53 -12 -22.64 Missing Person 2 6 25 40 -15 -37.50 Missing Property 13 9 39 50 -11 -22.00 Municipal Code Violations 5 2 29 51 -22 -43.14 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 1 1 1 0 0.00 Offenses Against Children 1 2 4 8 -4 -50.00 Other Assaults 10 13 68 102 -34 -33.33 Other Juvenile Offenses 2 2 13 6 7 116.67 Other Police Service 2 5 16 23 -7 -30.43 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 3 2 1 50.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 1 0 2 0 2 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 1 2 3 -1 -33.33 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Prowling 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 Resisting Arrest 2 0 5 2 3 150.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Sex Offenses 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 1 0 1 0 1 08-12-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 . CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change 8 Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 1 2 7 -5 -71.43 Suspended License 6 1 32 18 14 77.78 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 1 5 2 3 150.00 'lowed Vehicle 45 38 235 239 -4 -1.67 Trespassing 4 1 7 4 3 75.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 11 22 143 130 13 10.00 Vehicle Code Violations 1 2 21 12 9 75.00 violation of Court Order 4 3 18 6 12 200.00 Warrants - Felony 3 0 12 9 3 33.33 Warrants - Misd 6 4 46 29 17 58.62 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 1 6 7 -1 -14.29 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------ ------ 214 226 1,364 1,417 214 226 1,364 1,417 08-12-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 3194 3 , 821 18 , 922 27, 496 Moving Citations 569 159 3 , 268 1, 160 ------- ------ ------ ------ 3763 3 , 980 22 , 190 28, 656 3763 3, 980 22 , 190 28 , 656 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 08/12/2008 at 02 : 31 : 50 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 07/01/2008 to 07/31/2008 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids All % officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 365 13.48 10 18.18 97.33 DOTSON 509 507 18.73 11 20.00 97.88 MACDEVITT 511 249 9.20 8 14.55 96.89 SERRANO 510 1103 40.75. 22 40.00 98.04 SMITH 654 483 .17.84 4 7.27 99.18 Total 2707 55 Page 1 of 1 Chair Lee McEnany Caraher ' Double Forte Vice Chair Barry Parker Carr,McClellan,Ingersoll, August 12, 2008 COMMUNITY Tbompson&Horn GATE PATH OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Treasurer "Turning Disabilities Into Possibilities" Joe Galligan Galligan,Thompson Mr.Jesus Nava &Flocas,LLP City of Burlingame Secretary 501 Primrose Road Steven Williams Burlingame, CA 94010 Cotcbett,Pitre&McCartirr g Dear Mr. Nava, You have created a smile,lifted a spirit and encouraged hope. On behalf of the Board of Directors staff,Board of Directors and participants at Community Gatepath, thank you for Alberta Aldinger taking the time to think of us.Your generous grant of$4,400.00 for PigMil ion Community Leader Possibilities, our disability awareness program,is deeply appreciated and Elaine Breeze recognized by all of us with the utmost gratitude. SummerHill Homes Jeff Fallick Gatepath teaches hundreds of children on the Peninsula about the importance of Fauick Insurance Services,Inc. understanding and respecting people with disabilities. Through PigMillion Joel Friedman Possibilities, students learn first-hand about the realities and possibilities of Accenture(Retired) people with disabilities by participating in hands-on activities that simulate visual Gail Kreissmann impairment,limited dexterity, speech impediment and dyslexia. We break down Hillsborough Auxiliary fear and stereotypes as children learn that people with disabilities are not that Liaison different from themselves. With your contribution,we look forward to providing Timothy M.Krozek more youth with this eye opening experience. Efficient Frontier H.G.(Toby)Mumford,Jr. Your donation is enriching the lives of many children by helping make this 1 Franklin Templeton Resources program possible. Again, on behalf of the entire Community Gatepath family, Patti Poindexter thank you for your commitment to `Turning Disabilities Into Possibilities!" Hillsbomugb Auxiliary President Sincerely, Bradford Solso A r✓Q—y_/�L (� l sliwond Management � Y Partners,LLC Sheryl Young CbieJExeczttive Officer trie ampe Community Gatepath Marke g& Development Note: Please retain this letter as proof of your donation; the Internal RevVService requires a receipt.No goods or services were received in exchange for your contribution. Tax ID: 94-1156502 875 Stanton Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Tel:654259-8500 Fax:654697-5010 www.gatepath.com Sustainable (650)638-2323 • Fax:(650)341-1395 San Mateo County 177 Bovet Road,Sixth Floor,San Mateo,CA 94402 Economy. Equity. E-mail:advocate@sustainablesonmateo.org Web:www.sustainablesanmateo.org edicated to the long-term health and vitality of our region Founder MARCIA PAGELS August 15, 2008 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chair RUTH PETERSON Rosalie O'Mahony, Mayor Vice Chair City of Burlingame PATRICK BURT 501 Primrose Rd. Secretary Burlingame, CA 94010 BETH BHATNAGAR Treasurer THOMAS ROUNDS Dear Ms. O'Mahony, WARD DANNER GLADWYN D'SOUZA On behalf of Sustainable San Mateo County (SSMC), we want to personally ROSALYN Koo thank the City of Burlingame for its generous financial support of$1,360 for our JEANNENE MINNIX 2009 Indicators for a Sustainable San Mateo County report. We appreciate your COLLEEN MCAVOY vote of confidence in the value of this report and the importance of promoting MARCIA PAGELS WILLIAM SCHULTE sustainable thinking and practices within our cities and County. STEPHANI SCOTT STEVE SLOMKA The inclusion of city reports in this annual document helps us gauge the interest ADVISORY COUNCIL and endeavors of our community in sustainability. Our Director of Education, .JILL BOONE Tina King, will continue to make presentations on the report that are tailored to JULIA BOTT each community. This also gives us valuable feedback from government leaders TOM CRONIN and staff on how to make the report an even more useful and effective tool for EVANGELINE BURGESS RICHARD GORDON decision-makers. We look forward to incorporating your ideas and suggestions .JERRY HILL in our 2009 Edition. ANNE HINCKLE DAVID HINCKLE Thanks again for investing in SSMC; we look forward to working together to RO KHANNA enhance the long-term vitality of our region. ARTHUR LLOYD THERESA LYNGSO Sincerely yours, KAY MCCANN DOUG MCGLASHAN RICK[MCGLASHAN CLEM MOLONY Tyler Hammer Ruth Peterson MARK MOULTON Executive Director Board Chair JANICE Rossi Executive Director TYLER HAMMER cc: James Nantell, City Manager Director of Educations TINA KING Project Coordinator Indicators Report ADAM LYNCH SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY is a nonprofit public benefit corporation exempt from Federal income tax under IRS Code Section 501(c)(3) CA- 44 August 14, 2008 PRIMROSE CENTER CALL Primrose Center 139 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame 650.342.2255 c/o Jesus Nava, Finance Director 650.342.5005 Fax 501 Primrose Rd Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Friends, Coordinating Council Board Members Thank you so much for your recent grant of $6,550.00 to the CALL Primrose Center. Polly Baugh Patti Black As you know, middle and low income families are suffering as a result Suzanne Boutin of the faltering economy, rising unemployment and soaring fuel and Tom Caldecott food prices. This "perfect storm" is putting a strain on budgets as Nancy Fineman people struggle to buy enough food for their families. As a result, the Rev. Henry Hansen CALL Primrose Center has seen a dramatic increase in the number of people seeking assistance; many of whom are asking for help for the Meredith Kooyman first time in their lives, while others who haven't need us in recent Carol Knowles years are returning to us again for help. Muriel Lundquist Rev. Laurie McHugh Your ongoing support of CALL is so important to our mission to ease Joan Mersman the burden of others. Cora Sargent Linda Weaver Sincerely, Larry Wigby 1Ct j--1 Larry Wright,Jr. / ' Executive Director Mary Watt Mary_ Watt Executive Director CALL Primrose To faithfully assist those in need on a path to self-sufficiency by providing direct aid and referral services. 25 years Of Chang111A lives with Each Act of Giving 1983 - 2005 uc t - Serving People with Developmental Disabilities & their Families August 7, 2007 Mr. Jesus Nava, Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Mr. Nava: On behalf of Parca clients, staff, volunteers, and Board of Directors, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the City of Burlingame for its recent grant to Parca's Family Support Services program. The funds we received will be used to offset the cost of general program expenses. The Family Support Services program is the cornerstone of our organization and represents the origin of our very beginnings 56 years ago. It has come to be a critical lifeline for San Mateo County families struggling with the challenges of raising a child with a developmental disability. Family Support Services helps to reduce the stresses and pressures that can arise from caring for a family member with special needs. Many of those served have reported that they have been able to retain jobs, maintain communication, find respite care, and keep their families intact thanks to this program. We are most grateful for your support of this program. Thanks again. Sincerely, a'tv Diana M. Conti Executive Director 800 Airport Blvd.,Suite 320,Burlingame,CA 94010 Phone 650.312.0730 Fax 650.312.0737 E-mail parca@parca.org Donation pickup 1-877-99PARCA (toll free) www.parca.org