Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2016.08.01 Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on August 1, 2016 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. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Rosalie McCloud. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the City. 6. PRESENTATIONS There were no presentations. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Randy Uang from Breathe California discussed the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors sponsored Marijuana Education Initiative. He asked Burlingame residents to participate in the Initiative’s survey that can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/breathepoll. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any items from the Consent Calendar. No items were pulled. Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 2 a. APPROVAL OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR’S OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council approval of her out-of-state travel. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GROUP 4 ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING INC. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 78-2016. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE EIGHT NEW LIGHT POLES AND EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH TENNYSON ELECTRIC, INC. FOR THE MURRAY FIELD LIGHTING PROJECT, AND APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $110,514 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 79-2016. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS There were no public hearings. 10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE INITIATIVE PETITION ENTITLED “AN ORDINANCE TO ENACT RENT STABILIZATION AND JUST CAUSE FOR EVICTION AND REPEAL PRIOR RESTRICTIONS ON THE REGULATION OF SALE OR RENTAL PRICE OF REAL ESTATE” City Attorney Kane presented the informational report discussing the sufficiency of the pending rent stabilization and just cause for eviction ordinance petition. She stated that during the circulation of the petition, the California Apartment Association (“CAA”) sent a letter to the City Clerk. The letter informed the City Clerk that she had a duty to reject the petition based on its failure to put forth the full text of Measure T. City Attorney Kane reviewed the proposed ordinance that the proponents circulated, stating that the ordinance spends a majority of its time setting up a rental housing commission and establishing rent stabilization. Additionally, the proposed ordinance includes a short section superseding and invalidating any previous legislation on the matter including Measure T. City Attorney Kane stated that she looked at this matter and reviewed the case law that both the CAA and the proponents offered. She stated that while the CAA’s argument was not without merit, she believed that the touchstone was to prevent voter confusion. Accordingly, she stated that because the proposed initiative mentioned Measure T and included the full text of the proponent’s proposed ordinance, voter confusion was avoided. Therefore, she stated that the Clerk should certify the petition. Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 3 Councilmember Beach asked if there was any statutory requirement that Measure T be attached to the petition. Furthermore, she asked if Council was responsible for researching and understanding case law that might apply to the process defined in the Elections Code. City Attorney Kane discussed the definition of full text that is found in the Elections Code and stated that what the proponents had presented in their proposed legislation met this requirement. As well, she explained that pursuant to the Elections Code it is the role of the City Clerk to undertake the verification of signatures and if they surpass the number required to certify the petition and present it to Council. She added that it was the role of the Council, after the Clerk certified the petition, to determine what option under Elections Code Section 9214 (which would be presented in the next staff report) the City should take. Councilmember Beach asked if there was anything the City could do at this point to publish Measure T. City Attorney Kane stated that it could be placed on the City’s website but that under the process defined in the Elections Code it would not be included in the Voter Information Pamphlet. Councilmember Colson asked if either CAA or the proponent have the option to litigate the decision the Council makes concerning accepting the City Clerk’s certificate. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson asked if litigation could delay the measure from being placed on the November ballot. City Attorney Kane replied that Courts try to expedite these cases to ensure that the matter is settled prior to an election. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer presented the staff report requesting Council adopt Resolution Number 80-2016. She reviewed the background of the petition process, stating that on March 31, 2016, the proponents delivered their notice of intent and proposed initiative to her office. At that time, the proponents informed her of their intent to place the measure on the November ballot. She explained that because this was not a regularly scheduled municipal election, they would need to get 15% of the registered voters in Burlingame’s signatures for the measure to qualify. Next, City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that based on the date that the proponents published their notice of intent, the City had 15,544 registered and therefore 15% is 2,332. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that on July 5, 2016, the proponents filed their petition consisting of 408 sections and a raw count of 3,508 signatures. After completing the raw count, the petition was delivered to the County Elections Office who conducted a full verification of the petition. On July 21, 2016, the County Elections Office informed the City Clerk that 2,375 signatures were valid equaling 15.28% of the registered voters of Burlingame. Based on the County Elections Office’s review, the City Clerk deemed the petition sufficient and signed a certificate of sufficiency. Mayor Keighran opened the item for public comment. Brant Turner stated his appreciation of the City Clerk and City Attorney’s work. Burlingame resident Larry Stevenson stated his concerns about the proposed initiative. Burlingame resident Bob Ferris voiced his opinion that people understood what they were signing and therefore the petition should be certified. Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 4 Councilmember Brownrigg stated his appreciation that the City requested a full verification of the signatures instead of a random sampling. He also expressed his opinion that legally the City needed to certify the petition. Vice Mayor Ortiz thanked the City Attorney for her legal research. He stated that he was not convinced that CAA’s complaint had any merit and therefore the petition should be certified. Councilmember Beach thanked the community for reaching out to her and stated that based on the City Attorney’s research she concurred with her councilmembers that the petition should be certified. Councilmember Colson thanked the City Attorney and the City Clerk for their work. She stated that whenever a new ordinance is proposed there are a myriad of laws that are affected. Accordingly, she didn’t see it as the intent of the Elections Code to require the proponents to attach all laws that are affected. Therefore she agreed that the petition should be certified. Mayor Keighran echoed the sentiments of her councilmembers. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 80-2016; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. This motion passed unanimously by voice vote; 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016 AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TO GENERAL LAW CITIES AND SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A QUESTION RELATING TO AN INITIATIVE MEASURE; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY CLERK TO PREPARE THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PLACE THE INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT; AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO TO CONSLIDATE A MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD WITH THE PRESIDENTIAL GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 8, 2016 PURSUANT TO ELECTIONS CODE SECTION 10403 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 81-2016. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer presented the staff report outlining Council’s options after adopting the City Clerk’s certificate of sufficiency. She stated that pursuant to Elections Code Section 9214 the City has three options: (1) adopt the ordinance without any alteration; (2) order a special election (November 8, 2016); or (3) order an information report pursuant to Section 9212. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the first option was unavailable to the City Council. She stated that because the initiative proposes to repeal Ordinance 1356 (Measure T) which was enacted by a vote of the people, the Council couldn’t adopt it. Instead, the initiative must be voted on by the registered voters of Burlingame. She explained that under the second option, the City Council could call for a special election on the measure which would be consolidated with the November 8, 2016 Presidential General Election. She stated that if the Council called for the special election, Council would need to adopt Resolution 81-2016 that includes the ballot measure question, a request for the City Attorney to draft an impartial analysis and a request for the Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 5 full text (22 page ordinance) to be included in the Voter Information Pamphlet. As well, she stated that the Council would need to determine whether or not they wished to write the argument against the measure. She explained that under the Elections Code, the proponents get first rights at the argument in favor of the measure and the Council gets first rights at the argument against the measure. If the City Council called for the special election it would cost the City approximately $55,000 including the $18,000 to print the full text in the Voter Information Pamphlet. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the third option allowed the City Council to order an informational report educating the community on different effects of the proposed ordinance under Elections Code Section 9212. She stated that if the City Council ordered this report, staff would have 30 calendar days to research, draft and present the report to the City Council. Accordingly, she stated that if this option was chosen the measure would miss the August 12th deadline for it to be placed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. Accordingly, the City Council would have to call for a special election that would occur in the middle of December. She explained that because a December election would not be consolidated with another district, the City would have to pay the entire cost of the election. She stated that it would cost the City approximately $145,000. Councilmember Beach asked what the cost of the 9212 report would be. City Manager Goldman stated that it would probably be above $10,000 and that the City would need to hire a consulting group. Councilmember Beach asked if the City Council requested 9212 report, would the report provide the City with options other than the three outlined by the City Clerk. City Attorney Kane stated that after staff presents the 9212 report to the Council that the Council will have to call for an election. She stated that if Measure T didn’t exist that the Council would have had the option to adopt the ordinance after the 9212 report but because they don’t have that option, the Council must call for an election. Councilmember Beach asked if there was any other way to get this information. City Attorney Kane stated that the Council could ask for any type of information they want. City Manager Goldman stated that staff would be able to prepare an informational report for the City Council by the September 19th meeting. Mayor Keighran asked if what the staff was describing was a modified 9212. City Attorney Kane responded affirmatively. Mayor Keighran asked how it is different from a 9212 report. City Attorney Kane stated that its difference is simply procedural. She explained that a 9212 report would delay the election while the Council asking for a modified 9212 report would allow the measure to be placed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if the report would make it into the Voter Information Pamphlet. City Attorney Kane replied in the negative but stated that they could post the report on the website and make it available to the public. Mayor Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Diana Reddy, Tom McCloskey, Cynthia Cornell, Tom Hornblower, Daniel Saver, Tom Linebarger, Adela Meadows, Steve Goveia, Sandra, Michael Ianneo, Kristen Parks, Cynthia Wakotich, Naveed Safipour, Eric Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 6 Sandler, Anne Bellows, Amy Giuliano, Bob Ferris, Rod and a few other unnamed speakers spoke in favor of placing the measure on the November, 2016 ballot. Steve Stluka, Maria Iskin, Roman I., Tom Tved, Erik Winkler, Tim Auran, Paul Beaudreau, John Gieseker, Joe Galligan, Martha Mulligan, Larry Stevenson spoke in favor of Option 3. Councilmember Beach stated that she strongly felt that the community needed an informational report on the impact that the proposed initiative would/could have on the residents of Burlingame and the City as a whole. She stated her support of getting information to the voters and also placing the measure on the November ballot. She explained that she was concerned to hear that people signed the petition without reading it because an important part of the democratic process is transparency. She discussed the idea that it is a disservice to the community to sign onto an ordinance without reading the document and understanding its far reaching scope. She urged voters to get informed and understand the proposed legislation. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the difference in voter turnout rates at special elections (30%) versus presidential elections (80%). Accordingly he felt the measure should be on the November ballot. He expressed his belief that the proposed legislation is flawed. He stated that he was particularly concerned that the Rental Housing Commission is not held accountable to the voters or the council and instead has unfettered power. Councilmember Brownrigg discussed the known housing issue in the community but stated that the proposed ordinance would not solve this issue and instead goes too far. Councilmember Brownrigg stated because the proposed legislation is flawed, he believes the Council should write the argument against the initiative. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that tonight’s meeting is not about the community’s opinion on rent control but rather about whether or not the measure goes on the November, 2016 ballot. He stated he wasn’t convinced that Option 3 would make for a better process instead he believed that the measure should be placed on the November, 2016 ballot and that the Council should request an informational report. Councilmember Colson stated the importance of transparency and information. She echoed Councilmember Brownrigg’s concerns about the flaws of the legislation. She stated her understanding of the affordable housing crisis and discussed the many projects and initiatives that are going on in the community to help solve this issue including the Council’s plans to develop public parking lots into affordable housing units. Mayor Keighran stated that from listening to her colleagues, it seemed that the Council was interested in receiving an informational report. She discussed her disappointment in hearing that many hadn’t read the 22 page proposed ordinance in its entirety. She stated that there are a lot of unintended consequences in the proposed ordinance. Accordingly, she believed the report to be of utmost importance so that the community has the opportunity to fully understand the ordinance. Mayor Keighran outlined the questions she wanted answered in an informational report. She discussed her desire to learn more about the rental commission such as how it will be set up, oversight, responsibilities, budget, staffing, timeline of setting up the commission, legal issues arising from the commission’s decisions and its location. She also asked that the report discuss any impact on the City’s housing supply and how the ordinance would affect diversity, transfer of apartments, property taxes, and the City’s current affordable housing plans. She asked that staff ensure that the report is a priority. Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 7 Councilmember Beach added that she would like to see the report include the ordinance’s impact on: the ability of new working class families to afford renting in Burlingame, the City with potential lawsuits, the San Mateo County court system, and property owners renting their own homes. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced a note of caution that some of the questions posed might not have answers or cause staff to speculate. Mayor Keighran agreed with Councilmember Brownrigg, but hoped that the report would provide the Council with some idea of how this proposed ordinance could affect the community. Councilmember Colson asked about the argument selection. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that while the proponents have the first right at the argument in favor, the Council would have the first right at the argument against. Councilmember Colson asked if the City Council needed to determine tonight whether or not to write the argument. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson stated that she supported Councilmember Brownrigg in his suggestion that the Council draft the argument against. Mayor Keighran asked about the Brown Act’s impact on drafting the argument. City Attorney Kane stated that only two could work on the argument and the other three could decide if they wanted to sign on to it but could not offer modifications. Vice Mayor Ortiz expressed his concern that the informational report might be too wide in scope. Mayor Keighran expressed her belief that due diligence required the Council to request as much information as possible. City Manager Goldman stated that the report is a tall order, and that some of the questions may end up being unanswerable. Councilmember Colson asked if it would be helpful to have a subcommittee work on the report. City Attorney Kane replied in the affirmative. However, she cautioned the Council that the report would remain impartial as staff time cannot be used to campaign for or against a measure. She also asked that the councilmembers working on the report not be the same as those writing the argument against. Councilmember Beach voiced concerns about writing an argument against. She stated that the Council may want to allow someone with a larger stake in the issue write the argument against the measure. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the same individual who writes the argument against has to write the rebuttal. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer replied that the author of the primary argument could authorize someone else to write the rebuttal. Mayor Keighran asked Council if they agreed to having Councilmember Brownrigg and Councilmember Colson write the argument against and Councilmember Beach and herself on the subcommittee for the modified 9212 report. The Council agreed. Burlingame City Council August 1, 2016 Approved Minutes 8 Councilmember Brownrigg asked if Councilmember Colson and he couldn’t agree to the terms of the argument when should they alert the Council they would not be submitting an argument. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer stated that others could always submit their argument and if the Council decided not to file, then theirs may be chosen. Mayor Keighran made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 81-2016, including the full text in the Voter Information Pamphlet and asking for a modified informational report; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call; 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Council delayed reporting on their activities until the August 15, 2016 meeting because of the length of the night’s meeting 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS There were no future agenda items. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 9, 2016 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m. in memory of Michelle Hall. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel-Shearer City Clerk