HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2020.06.09City of Burlingame
BURLINGAME
F,
Meeting Agenda - Final
City Council
Tuesday, June 9, 2020 6:30 PM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain
provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct
their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter -in -Place
Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer on March 16, 2020 (which was then
extended on March 31, 2020, April 29, 2020, and May 15, 2020) the statewide Shelter -in -Place
Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's
social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the Council Chambers
will not be open to the public for the June 9, 2020 City Council Special Meeting.
Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below.
Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on Youtube and uploaded to the City's website
after the meeting.
Members of the public may provide written comments by email to
publiccomment@burlingame.org.
Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or
note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent
Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three
minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To
ensure that your comment is received and read to the City Council for the appropriate agenda
item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 9, 2020. The City will make
every effort to read emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the
record will be provided to the City Council after the meeting.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
Online
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 61512020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 9, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 p.m. - Online
To Join the Zoom Meeting (Note that the link below doesn't look like a hyperlink, but
it is)
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84040648386?
pwd=ZEZNdDVvVWg5TVc1 NIJvYXFNc3hTUT09
Meeting ID: 840 4064 8386
Password: 875835
One tap mobile
+16699006833„84040648386# US (San Jose)
+12532158782„84040648386# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 436 2866 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 840 4064 8386
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdnTsb3k4V
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
6. PRESENTATIONS
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA
Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to
suggest an item for a future Council agenda may do so during this public comment period. The Ralph M.
Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the City Council from acting on any matter
that is not on the agenda.
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 61512020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 9, 2020
8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are usually approved in a single motion, unless pulled for separate discussion.
Any member of the public wishing to comment on an item listed here may do so by submitting a speaker
slip for that item in advance of the Council's consideration of the consent calendar.
Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of Opposition Regarding
Proposed Amendment to Revenue & Taxation Code Section 97.2 in Education Omnibus
Trailer Bill with May Revision Amendments: Excess ERAF
Attachments: Staff Report
Resolution
Draft Letter of Opposition
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Public Comment)
Public Hearing to Consider the Temporary Street Closure of Downtown Burlingame
Avenue to Facilitate Safe Pedestrian Activity and Outdoor Dining Pursuant to the Latest
San Mateo County Health Order
Attachments: Staff Report
Summary of DBID Survey Results for Closing Burlingame Avenue
Draft Burlingame Avenue Street Closure and Detour Plan
Updated San Mateo County Health Order, Appendix C-1 (REVISED), dated Jun
Economic Development Subcommittee Draft Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2020
Economic Development Subcommittee Draft Meeting Minutes — Special Meetinc
10. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmembers report on committees and activities and make announcements.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Library Board of
Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 61512020
City Council Meeting Agenda - Final June 9, 2020
Notice: Any attendees who require special assistance or a disability -related modification or
accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an
alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet, or other writings that may be
distributed at the meeting, should contact Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk, by 10:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 650-558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Notification in
advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility
to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment.
IzI*Ago] III W&K01111P►Is] IgJ,l4:4 11111!W
Regular City Council Meeting on June 15, 2020
VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE AT www.burlingame.org/video
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 via www.burlingame.org or by emailing the City Clerk at
mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or
through email, contact the City Clerk at 650-558-7203.
City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 61512020
BiFRL- 1NAGENDA NO: 8a
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: June 9, 2020
From: Carol Augustine, Finance Director — (650) 558-7222
Subject: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Send a Letter of
Opposition Regarding Proposed Amendment to Revenue & Taxation Code
Section 97.2 in Education Omnibus Trailer Bill with May Revision
Amendments: Excess ERAF
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor to
send a letter of opposition regarding a proposed amendment to the State's Revenue & Taxation
Code Section 97.2 in the Education Omnibus Trailer Bill with the State's May Budget Revision
amendments.
BACKGROUND
In February 2019, certain Counties learned that there were some inconsistencies in the
methodologies they were employing to determine their Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) calculations. For more than a year, those Counties have been diligently engaged in
conversation with their respective County offices of education as well as among themselves with
the goal of identifying a reliable, consistent, and mutually -understood methodology that could be
used by all Counties, the State Controller, and other state agencies when calculating ERAF
entitlement to school districts. Subsequently, in January 2020, conversations transpired among
the local County offices of education, the Department of Education (CDE), the Department of
Finance (DOF), and the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) without any engagement with the
county auditor/controllers.
On March 6, 2020, the LAO issue a report titled, "Excess ERAF: A Review of the Calculations
Affecting School Funding". The LAO Report does not explain how or why the Counties' ERAF
calculations fail to comply with the law. The Counties had a meeting scheduled to discuss these
issues with the DOF, CDE, and LAO in March 2020, but that meeting was cancelled after the
COVID-19 pandemic impacted State and local operations. In May, the DOF released the
proposed trailer bill language that is the subject of this report without any notice to the county
auditor/controllers.
DISCUSSION
1
Letter of Opposition to Trailer Bill Language - Excess ERAF June 9, 2020
The Education Omnibus Trailer Bill contains an amendment to the Revenue & Taxation Code that
would harm five Bay Area counties. In San Mateo County, the estimated harm is approximately
$20 million/year. The motivation behind the amendment appears to be a disagreement that the
DOF currently has with calculations by local auditor/controllers regarding two issues (charter
school payments and RDA dissolution calculations).
The amendment concerns the allocation of Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF)
monies and contains the following provisions:
• Civil penalties against counties - The amendment would provide for civil penalties against any
county that calculates and apportions ERAF in a way that differs from "DOF guidance"
(notwithstanding that the State Controller's Office (SCO), as opposed to the DOF, is generally
the State agency with the expertise and role of issuing guidance on property tax
apportionment issues);
• Retroactivity - The amendment would apply retroactively to FY 2018-19 (notwithstanding that
there was no existing "guidance" on the issues)
• DOF supplants SCO's role - Per the amendment, the DOF, as opposed to the SCO, would be
providing guidance regarding complex property tax apportionment issues.
The ERAF calculations at issue do not negatively impact local schools. Rather, the calculations
primarily concern whether certain charter school funds are paid from the local ERAF vs. the
State's General Fund. In its March 2020 report, the LAO asserted that the financial impact of the
ERAF calculation issues was $350 million/year, although discussions among the counties have
made clear that the amounts at issue do not come to nearly that amount. Nevertheless, even the
approximately $20 million at issue for San Mateo County are critical to funding local efforts to
address public health and safety issues, especially at this time of dramatic revenue losses.
Again, this disagreement with the State will not decrease local school funding. Rather, this
disagreement centers around whether that funding comes from the State's General Fund or the
local ERAF. The counties are requesting that the Legislature reject the trailer bill, allowing an
opportunity to continue the dialogue with the Department of Finance, Department of Education,
and the State Controller's Office to develop a clear and consistent methodology to apply to ERAF
calculations state-wide.
FISCAL IMPACT
Approximately $20 million in San Mateo County ERAF funds are at issue in the disagreement
with the State. As the calculations are complex, it is difficult to determine the impact to the City of
Burlingame's excess ERAF calculations.
Exhibits:
• Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing the Mayor to Send a
Letter of Opposition regarding Proposed Amendment to Revenue & Taxation Code Section
97.2 in Education Omnibus Trailer Bill with May Revision Amendments
• Draft Letter of Opposition
2
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING
THE MAYOR TO SEND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION REGARDING PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO REVENUE & TAXATION CODE SECTION 97.2 IN EDUCATION
OMNIBUS TRAILER BILL WITH MAY REVISION AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, certain Counties in California have been engaged in discussions with other
Counties and their respective County offices of education with the goal of identifying a reliable,
consistent, and mutually -understood methodology that could be used by all Counties, the State
Controller, and other state agencies when calculating Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund
(ERAF) entitlement to school districts; and
WHEREAS, the State's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) issued a report in March 2020
titled, "Excess ERAF: A Review of the Calculations Affecting School Funding" purporting that
these Counties' ERAF calculations failed to comply with State law; and
WHEREAS, the Counties had a meeting scheduled to discuss these issues with the
Department of Finance (DOF), the Department of Education (CDE), and the LAO in March
2020, but the meeting was cancelled after the COVID-19 pandemic impacted State and local
operations; and
WHEREAS, without notice to the counties involved, the DOF released a proposed trailer
bill for inclusion in the State's May revision of the 2020-21 Fiscal Year Budget that would amend
the Revenue and Taxation Code to impose civil penalties on counties whose ERAF calculations
have been questioned by the DOF; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Revenue and Taxation Code amendments would apply
retroactively to FY 2018-19, and require local auditor -controller adherence to DOF "guidance"
that did not exist at the time and still does not exist; and
WHEREAS, the State Controller's Office is responsible for auditing the counties'
allocation and apportionment of local property taxes, including reviewing excess ERAF
calculations, and has not identified problems with the Counties' calculations in prior audits
spanning many years; and
WHEREAS, in contrast to the State Controller's Office and the fiduciary and independent
responsibilities of county auditor -controllers, the DOF Director is appointed and holds office at
the pleasure of the Governor; and
WHEREAS, there is existing State oversight of county auditor -controllers' administration of
property tax laws; and
WHEREAS, the ERAF calculations at issue will not impact local school funding; at issue is
whether that funding comes from the State's General Fund or the local ERAF.
1
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESOLVES THAT:
The City of Burlingame opposes the proposed amendments to the Revenue & Taxation Code
within the Education Omnibus Trailer Bill, and authorizes the Mayor to send a letter of opposition
to the appropriate Legislators.
Mayor, Emily Beach
I, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing
Resolution was adopted at a special meeting of the City Council held on the 9th day of June, 2020,
by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
2
EMILY BEACH, MAYOR The City of Burlingame
ANN O'BRIEN KEIGHRAN, VICE MAYOR
RICARDO ORTIZ
MICHAEL BROWNRIGG CITY HALL -- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7201
DONNA COLSON BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org
June 9, 2020
The Honorable Holly J. Mitchell
Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee, Chair
State Capitol, Room 5050
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Philip Ting
Assembly Budget Committee
Chair State Capitol, Room 6026
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Proposed Amendments to Revenue & Taxation Code Section 97.2 in Education Omnibus Trailer Bill with May
Revision Amendments - OPPOSE
Dear Senator Mitchell and Assemblymember Ting:
The City of Burlingame opposes the provision in Education Omnibus Trailer Bill with May Revision Amendments (p. 96) that would
amend Revenue and Taxation Code section 97.2 to add a new subsection (d)(2)(B) to impose civil penalties and provide the
Department of Finance with a punitive mechanism against the Counties. The State Controller's Office (SCO) is the State agency
granted the authority to oversee the County auditor -controllers, through its duties from the State Constitution, statutory authority,
and its historical role and expertise in auditing and issuing guidance regarding property taxes. By delegating that role to the
Department of Finance (DOF), this legislation deprives the voters of their right to elect an independent official to oversee the tax
collection and distribution of State and local revenue for thousands of governmental entities.
Retroactive Changes Are Not Appropriate
The proposed amendment would apply retroactively to fiscal year 2018-19, imposing penalties on the Counties for failure to abide
by not yet written guidelines from the Department regarding ERAF calculations. The proposal would be unfairly punitive, and would
further harm local jurisdictions during the midst of their crucial efforts to deal with the pandemic and the associated economic fallout.
Civil Penalties Are Unnecessary and Punitive
The Counties firmly believe that their auditor -controllers have acted in full compliance with the law. Nevertheless, if it is ultimately
determined that their calculations were not in accordance with existing law, the Counties would promptly come into compliance.
State law already gives the SCO extraordinary remedies to obtain funds improperly withheld from state agencies and school
districts. Therefore, the SCO already has ample remedies to address any possible noncompliance situation.
The Honorable Holly J. Mitchell and the Honorable Philip Ting
June 9, 2020
Page 2
Regular Audits Justify the Counties' Distributions
Under Government Code section 12468, the SCO is required to audit the Counties' apportionment and allocation of property tax
revenue, and these audits include ERAF allocations. For the Counties, these audits must occur every three years. SCO has not
issued any findings regarding the Counties' ERAF-related calculations.
In contrast to the SCO and the fiduciary and independent responsibilities of county auditor- controllers, the DOF Director is
appointed by and holds office at the pleasure of the Governor. While the DOF has some financial responsibilities under state law,
reviewing allocation of property tax revenues, including ERAF allocations, for compliance with state law falls squarely under SCO's
statutory jurisdiction.
If state law is going to direct a particular State agency or department to issue guidance on ERAF issues, then the SCO is more
suited to that task based on its statutory duties and historical role and expertise in auditing and issuing guidance for county auditor -
controllers and other local agencies regarding property tax and ERAF calculations. The proposed amendments represent an
unwarranted shift in this longstanding oversight structure to an entity with a direct fiscal interest in the matter.
The City of Burlingame understands the struggles the State faces with its budget. Local governments are facing the same
difficulties. This bill transfers funds to the State at the expense of local jurisdictions. We urge you to reject it in its entirety.
Sincerely
Emily Beach
Mayor
AGENDA NO: 9a
BiFRLINGAME STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: June 9, 2020
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: June 9, 2020
From: Lisa Goldman, City Manager — (650) 558-7204
Syed Murtuza, Director of Public Works — (650) 558-7230
Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7253
Subject: Public Hearing to Consider the Temporary Street Closure of Downtown
Burlingame Avenue to Facilitate Safe Pedestrian Activity and Outdoor
Dining Pursuant to the Latest San Mateo County Health Order
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider the temporary street
closure of Downtown Burlingame Avenue between El Camino Real and California Drive from
Friday to Sunday on a weekly basis. This pilot program aims to facilitate safe increased
pedestrian activity and to allow for safe outdoor dining pursuant to the latest San Mateo County
Health Order, dated June 4, 2020, which allows outdoor dining effective June 6, 2020.
BACKGROUND
During its discussion of a potential slow streets program at the May 4, 2020 meeting, the City
Council expressed an interest in closing Downtown Burlingame Avenue to allow for safe
physical activities, and outdoor dining in particular, during the COVID-19 shelter -in -place orders.
Councilmembers indicated that they have received requests from residents and restauranteurs
to close Burlingame Avenue to vehicular traffic and allow increased pedestrian activities and
outdoor dining. Staff has also received requests from members of the public regarding closing
Burlingame Avenue for similar reasons.
It is important to note that even though restaurants were only permitted to provide take-out and
delivery at the time of the Council meeting, staff began working to develop a plan and
coordinate with downtown stakeholders on the temporary closure of Burlingame Avenue once
the County Health Officer modified the Health Order to permit outdoor dining.
On May 7, 2020, staff held a virtual meeting with Jenny Keleher, President of the Downtown
Business Improvement District (DBID), to discuss the possible closure of Burlingame Avenue
and to understand the needs of the business community in an effort to develop logistical details
and plans. On May 12, 2020, the DBID Board discussed the matter and unanimously supported
the idea of closing all of Downtown Burlingame Avenue to allow for more pedestrian activity and
to accommodate outdoor dining.
1
Special Meeting to Consider Temporary Closure of Burlingame Avenue June 9, 2020
to Facilitate Safe Pedestrian Activity and Outdoor Dining
At the May 13, 2020 Economic Development (ED) Subcommittee meeting, Vice Mayor O'Brien,
Councilmember Ortiz, members of the downtown business community (including Jenny Keleher
and Angela Pace from Blue Line Pizza), and staff discussed the possible closure of Burlingame
Avenue for outdoor dining. Ms. Keleher, representing the DBID, requested that the ED
Subcommittee consider closing all of Burlingame Avenue for several months to allow for outdoor
dining and pedestrian activity, which the DBID believed would help the restaurants and retail
businesses impacted by the shelter -in -place orders. Ms. Pace expressed concerns regarding
the closure and its impact on street parking and take-out services. Meeting participants also
discussed concerns regarding the potential health risks of large public gatherings and the need
for compliance with social distancing requirements. After extensive deliberations, the ED
Subcommittee requested that the DBID conduct a survey of its members to determine the level
of support for closing Burlingame Avenue.
DISCUSSION
As follow up to the ED Subcommittee's request, the DBID conducted an online survey of the
merchants in the downtown area. The online survey was sent out to 706 email addresses
representing over 500 businesses; 93 people responded. Approximately 58.1 % of the survey
respondents indicated support for closing Burlingame Avenue either through the COVID-19
shelter -in -place order or through the end of summer, while 21.5% of the respondents did not
support the street closure. For more details, please refer to the attached summary of the DBID
survey.
On May 28, 2020, the ED Subcommittee held a special meeting to review the results of the
survey and further discuss the potential closure of Burlingame Avenue. The ED Subcommittee
discussed a variety of closure concepts ranging from completely closing off the entire street to
just closing a couple of blocks. The ED Subcommittee also explored various options of short-
term and long-term closures. After an extensive discussion, the ED Subcommittee agreed to the
following:
• Close Burlingame Avenue between El Camino Real and California Drive from Thursday
to Sunday on a weekly basis for a one -month pilot program, and consider an extension
if feasible and if it is strongly supported.
• Keep Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue open for traffic to minimize potential adverse
impacts to traffic circulation, access to parking lots, and deliveries.
While reviewing the state vehicle code requirements for street closures, staff learned that there
are a set of specific conditions that need to be met for street closures. There is no provision in
the code, however, for temporarily closing off a street for a long duration and/or seasonal
purposes. With that said, staff believes that a temporary street closure for a shorter duration for
public health and safety purposes can be justified, whereas a lengthy closure may require
environmental review under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) and could present
potential code compliance concerns. Additionally, 'No Parking' signage has to be installed at
least 48 hours in advance of closing the street, which would present a logistical challenge and
confusion for the public. As a result, staff recommends that the City Council consider closing off
2
Special Meeting to Consider Temporary Closure of Burlingame Avenue June 9, 2020
to Facilitate Safe Pedestrian Activity and Outdoor Dining
Burlingame Avenue from Friday to Sunday each week for a one -month duration, which would
minimize the above -mentioned concerns.
While staff understands the desire to keep Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue open to traffic,
staff is concerned about the potential conflict between pedestrians crossing the intersections
and motorists. Staff recommends that the Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue intersections be
closed off to motorists to allow for uninterrupted pedestrian crossing at intersections along
Burlingame Avenue and to minimize conflicts with motorists. Traffic detour signs can be set up
in advance of the intersections to direct traffic and allow for safe traffic flow to minimize
circulation impacts.
The above recommendations would allow for safer pedestrian activity along Burlingame Avenue
and outdoor dining for restaurants as allowed by the June 4th San Mateo County Health Order,
while balancing the needs of retail businesses and other needs such as deliveries, circulation,
access to parking facilities, and refuse collection.
Burlingame Avenue Street Closure and Detour Plan
Staff proposes that Burlingame Avenue be closed to motorists between the parking lot just east
of El Camino Real and California Drive beginning Friday at 8 a.m. through Sunday at 10 p.m. on
a weekly basis for one month. The Council could subsequently extend the closure if it proves
successful. Staff has developed the attached Draft Street Closure Plan, which will provide
pedestrians with 10-foot wide pedestrian access along the sidewalk on both sides of Burlingame
Avenue. This will maintain uninterrupted pedestrian flow and will ensure continued Americans
with Disability Act (ADA) compliance. The restaurants will be able to use a 5-foot wide portion of
the sidewalk and the full parking lane for a total of 14 feet along their frontage for outdoor dining
purposes on both sides of the street. The middle part of the road, which is 20-feet wide (travel
lanes), will be available for additional pedestrian activity and will serve as an emergency
response access lane when needed. Additionally, staff will coordinate with Caltrans for
placement of necessary signage on El Camino Real.
In order to facilitate the safe and orderly implementation of said street closure to allow for
outdoor dining and pedestrian activity, staff recommends the following conditions for Council's
consideration:
• All restaurants, eateries, retail businesses, and members of the public must abide by the
San Mateo County Health Orders with respect to social distancing, masks, etc.
• Restaurants must follow the County Health Orders for serving food, including providing
PPE (personal protective equipment) for employees, and provide washing stations for
patrons.
• Restaurants serving alcohol beverages in the City right-of-way must obtain permission
from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) and submit
documentation to the City of Burlingame for approval.
• Each restaurant using the City right-of-way for outdoor dining is responsible for the
safety of their patrons. The City's existing sidewalk encroachment permit template can
be adapted to cover the expanded dining areas, and the City Council can direct that the
City waive encroachment permit fees for outdoor dining during this program.
3
Special Meeting to Consider Temporary Closure of Burlingame Avenue June 9, 2020
to Facilitate Safe Pedestrian Activity and Outdoor Dining
• The businesses must maintain ADA access at all times.
• Each restaurant using the outdoor dining space is responsible for keeping their frontage
sidewalk and the parking lane areas clean at all times.
• All tables and chairs should be removed from the sidewalk and street at the end of each
day.
• The City may remove the street closure or make adjustments if it is causing traffic
congestion, circulation, and/or parking problems. Additionally, the City may remove the
street closure or make adjustments if social distancing/face covering requirements and
County Health Orders are not met.
• The DBID will serve as a liaison for this project and will coordinate with merchants and
businesses to ensure all the conditions are complied with.
Parking
There will be a loss of approximately 150-160 street parking spaces along Burlingame Avenue
and side street intersections as a result of the street closure for three days per week. Because
there are public parking spaces available on the nearby streets and in several parking lots, staff
does not see a problem at this time. Given the San Mateo County Health Orders for reopening
of businesses and increased activity in the commercial areas, staff is planning to activate the
parking meters and begin enforcement on July 1, 2020. This will help improve parking
management and help increase the turnover of spaces to prevent employees parking in the core
areas for extended periods.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be significant staff time and resources utilized to set up and remove the traffic detour
and road closure signage on a weekly basis and to respond to issues and manage the closure.
This will impact staff's regular duties and affect other City services and work programs. Staff
estimates the cost of setting up and removing the street closure to be approximately $10,000 to
$12,000 per month assuming four setups and removals. Alternately, the Council may elect to
use an outside contractor for this effort to minimize impacts to other City services. With regard
to loss of parking revenue due to street closure, staff has not yet determined the amount.
Exhibits:
• Summary of DBID Survey Results for Closing Burlingame Avenue
• Draft Burlingame Avenue Street Closure and Detour Plan
• Updated San Mateo County Health Order, Appendix C-1 (REVISED), dated June 4, 2020
• Economic Development Subcommittee Draft Meeting Minutes — May 13, 2020
• Economic Development Subcommittee Draft Meeting Minutes — Special Meeting, May 28,
2020
IN
Summary of DBID Survey Results for Closing Burlingame Avenue
• Online Survey sent to 706 email addresses representing over 500 businesses in
mid -May 2020
• Total of 93 responses received
Three questions asked
Would you like to see Burlingame Avenue designated as a pedestrian -only zone?
- Yes, every day during this pandemic/social distancing period - 26.9%
- Yes, every day through the summer/fall, til the weather gets cold - 31.2%
- Yes, Weekends only - 10.8%
- Yes, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sundays - 5.4%
- Nope - 21.5%
- Other - 4.3%
Did you know that masks are required only while being inside or waiting outside a
business and while carrying out certain "essential work" tasks (shop clerks, etc.)
- Yes - 88.2%
- I do now - 11.8%
Ideas for designating curbside pick-up/drop off areas?
- Drive through similar to at SFO for Uber and Lyft rides - 11.6%
- Designate areas behind various restaurants and businesses for this - 67.4%
- Other - 20.9%
Five other responses were received via email only when asked if Burlingame Avenue should
become a pedestrian zone. Four were pro -pedestrian zone and one was anti -pedestrian zone.
Note: Survey results provided by DBID through email to the City on May22, 2020
BURLINGAME AVENUE STREET CLOSURE
10,
Sidewalk
(CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO EL CAMINO REAL)
EXISTING CONDITIONS
III
1' 2' 2' 8' 10' 10' 8' 2' 2' 1'
B B__ Si__ Parking lane Drive lane drive lane Parking lane Si__ B__ B
cy
10,
Sidewalk
0
BURLINGAME AVENUE STREET CLOSURE
1 D'
Sidewalk
(CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO EL CAMINO REAL)
PROPOSED OPTION
I I
1' 2` 2` 8
B B__ Si__ Temporary
Dining Area
r a 9
i r I I -r I a
2V
Closure Walkway/Emergency Access
00"k-
.dir
8
Temporary
Dining Area
,fr
I
2`
I
2`
1'
I
IIIIIIII
10'
Si_.
B__
B
Sidewalk
E
BURLINGAME AVENUE STREET CLOSURE
(CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO EL CAMINO REAL)
PROPOSED OPTION
da
IIIII I I III
b' 2` 2` 4' 1' B.
Sidewalk Bi__ B_. Ou#do... 5 Temporary
Dining Area
gnu'
Closure Walkway/Emergency Access
-f1
S. Id, 4' 2' 2' 6-
Temporary S Outdo ___ IB__ IBL Sidewalk
Dining Area
3i #
RDA
CLOSED ROAD
CITY AHEADHALL l CLOSED
C AHEAD
k. ITY PAFtKINO CITY PARKING ITY PARKIMta
LOT LOT LOT •
x ' MAIN A-3 /
CITY PA IN{
LIBRARY ROAD NO • �� I LET
CITY PARKING CLOSED TURNS �
�['� GARAGE AHEAD •
ROAD -' p
CIT CLOSED -�
NO
TURNS)
CITY LOTKIMG
ROAD
CLOSED I
AHEAD
/ • ROAD
NO - CLOSED
ROAD • TURNS RDA
CLOSED C05
I AHEA
ROAD '
CLOSED
AHEAD
f
CLOSED MOLLY STONES
AHEAD PARKING LOT x CITY PARKING
LOT
CITY PARKING I I
LOT
14.1 —
ROAD :INS#
#* CLOSED
• f# AHEAD
ITY PARKING
MAIN °
LIBRARY
ROAD
CLOSED
AHEAD
ROAD
CLOSED
CITY
HALL
/ -41�?
MOLLY STONES
PARKING LOT,
�6
CITYPAR KING
ROAD • ROAD
CLOSE CLOSED
AHEAD 1� AHEAD
�} f
ITYPARKING
CITY LI#IH{� OT LOT
A 3
I I
—/
CITY PARKING
GARAGE
ROAD
CITY PARKING CLOSED ROAD
LOT
14 �li CITY PARKING
• �/�=x � f LOT
ROAD
CLOSED
O CITY PAKVkIF4L.
LOT
r J
• rr �nl�t'tIFIG
LOT
;6%�
ROAD :INS#
CLOSED
AHEAD
CLOSED
ROAD
CLOSED
AHEAD
Dr. Scott Morrow, Health Officer
Cassius Lockett, Phi], Director
'd W SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH Public Health, Policy & Planning
PUBLIC HEALTH, 225 37th Avenue
POLICY & PLANNING San Mateo, CA 94403
smchealth.org
Order No. c19-5f — Appendix C-1 (REVISED): Additional Businesses Permitted to Operate
Effective June 6, 2020
General Requirements
The "Additional Businesses" listed below may begin operating, subject to the requirements set forth in the
Order and to any additional requirements set forth below or in separate industry -specific guidance by the Health
Officer. These businesses were selected to conform with the orders and guidance issued by the State of
California and based on its determination that it would be appropriate to allow these businesses to resume
operation and this Appendix should be interpreted accordingly.
To mitigate the risk of transmission to the greatest extent possible, before resuming operations, each Additional
Businesses must:
a. Prepare, post, implement, and distribute to their Personnel, as defined below, a Social Distancing
Protocol as specified in Section 15.h of the Order for each of their facilities in the County frequented by
Personnel or members of the public. If it is a service business that operates at customer homes, it must
instead of posting at the home, send an electronic version of the Social Distancing Protocol to the
customer at least one day in advance of the service being provided; and
b. Prepare, post, implement, and distribute to their Personnel a written health and safety plan as required
by the State of California outlined in its guidance that addresses all applicable best practices set forth in
relevant Health Officer directives, including how it will comply with all applicable Statewide guidance
issued by the State of California, which is hereby incorporated by reference and should be treated as if
issued by the Health Officer. If it is a service business that operates at customer homes, it must instead
of posting at the home, send an electronic version of the plan to the customer at least one day in
advance of the service being provided.
As used in this Appendix C-1, "Personnel" means the following people who provide goods or services
associated with the Additional Business in the County: employees; contractors and sub -contractors (such as
those who sell goods or perform services onsite or who deliver goods for the business); independent contractors
(such as "gig workers" who perform work via the Additional Business's app or other online interface); vendors
who are permitted to sell goods onsite; volunteers; and other individuals who regularly provide services onsite
at the request of the Additional Business.
Also, each Additional Business must comply with Social Distancing Requirements as well as all relevant state
guidance (found here: hiips:Hcovidl9.ca.gov/indusLry-guidance directives, and Health Officer orders.
Where a conflict exists between the state guidance and local public health directives related to the COVID-19
pandemic, including Health Officer orders, the most restrictive provision controls.
pF
'O
U
,.r4W� SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH,
POLICY & PLANNING
List of Additional Businesses:
For purposes of the Order, Additional Businesses include the following:
(1) Retail Stores and Retail Supply Chain Businesses (including indoor and outdoor shopping malls;
bookstores; jewelry stores; toy stores; clothing and shoe stores; home and furnishing stores; sporting goods
stores; and florists).
a. Basis for Addition. The State of California has determined that it would be appropriate to allow these
businesses to resume operation. For clarity, this provision does not include businesses like dine -in
restaurants, stadiums, music venues, entertainment venues, and theaters.
b. Description and Additional Conditions to Operate. Retail businesses and the businesses that support
them are permitted to operate subject to the stated limitations and conditions:
i. These retail stores must (if feasible) provide for curbside/outside pickup or delivery, including a
drive -through window, as a way to prevent crowds from forming and facilitate social distancing
inside the retail business. As to curbside/outside pickup, retail businesses must implement the
following:
a. Except as provided in subsection (b) below, stores must utilize direct access to an
immediately adjacent sidewalk, street or alley area for pickup by customers using any mode
of travel, without blocking pedestrian access or causing pedestrian or vehicle congestion.
b. Retail stores, including those in an enclosed indoor shopping center, that do not have direct
access to an adjacent sidewalk, street or alley area, must develop a written plan in
collaboration with the owner of the area to be utilized, including the shopping center operator
or owner, to designate clearly identified outdoor areas for pickup. The plan must address
how the pickup process will be monitored and managed, address customers using any mode
of travel, and do so without blocking pedestrian access or causing pedestrian or vehicle
congestion and ensuring social distancing. The plan must also address how it will achieve a
similar low level of contact intensity and number of contacts as curbside pickup by non -
enclosed shopping centers.
c. Products must be ordered in advance and remotely either by phone, internet or other
technology.
ii. Retail stores providing in-store shopping must, in the required health and safety plan, identify the
number of shoppers (complying with any requirements or limitations established by the State of
California) that can be accommodated, in a manner that ensures that shoppers and personnel can
maintain social distancing and put in place measures to enforce that limit.
iii. Businesses that manufacture the goods sold at retail stores covered in this category are allowed
to operate but only to the extent that they are manufacturing goods for these retail stores.
iv. Businesses that provide warehousing and logistical support to these retail stores are allowed to
operate but only to the extent they support these retail stores.
,.r4W� SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH,
POLICY & PLANNING
(2) Limited Services Which Do Not Require Close Customer Contact (such as pet grooming; dog walking;
car washes; appliance repair; residential and janitorial cleaning; and plumbing).
a. Basis for Addition. The State of California has determined that it would be appropriate to allow
these businesses to resume operation. In addition, these Limited Services has low contact intensity.
For clarity, this provision does not include businesses like dine -in restaurants or hair salons and
barbershops. Also, opening these services should result in a limited increase in the number of people
reentering the workforce and the overall volume of commercial activity and mitigation measures can
meaningfully decrease the resulting public health risk.
b. Description and Additional Conditions to Operate. Limited Services are services that are performed
in a manner in which the service provider and customer maintain at least six feet distance and wear a
face covering at all times. Personnel must disinfect any surfaces in customers' homes or customers'
items that they touch before and after the service.
(3) Outdoor Museums
a. Basis for Addition. The State of California has determined that it would be appropriate to allow
these businesses to resume operation. In addition, Outdoor Museums have low contact intensity and
a moderate number of contacts where interaction between the businesses' Personnel and customers
occur in the outdoors. Businesses that involve outdoor interactions carry a lower risk of
transmission than most indoor businesses. Also, outdoor museums should result in a limited
increase in the number of people reentering the workforce and the overall volume of commercial
activity and mitigation measures can meaningfully decrease the resulting public health risk.
b. Description and Additional Conditions to Operate. Outdoor Museums are a museum where the
exhibitions are located outdoors, and are permitted to operate subject to the additional stated
limitations and conditions:
i. Personnel and customers must at all times wear a face covering; and
ii. Any indoor components of the museum must remain closed to the public.
(4) Offices
a. Basis for Addition. The State of California has determined that it would be appropriate to allow
Offices to resume operation. In addition, opening Offices should result in a limited increase in the
number of people reentering the workforce because the Order still requires that businesses assign
only those who cannot perform their job duties from home to work outside the home, and the overall
volume of commercial activity and mitigation measures can meaningfully decrease the resulting
public health risk.
b. Description and Additional Conditions to Operate. For a business that is not an Essential Business,
an Outdoor Business, nor an Additional Business, the business may open its Offices but only to the
extent that persons working in these Offices cannot perform their job duties from home, and any
such business operating Offices must ensure that there is minimal contact with members of the
public, no indoor person -to -person commercial activity, and must adhere to Social Distancing
Requirements and the Face Covering Order.
,.r4W� SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH,
POLICY & PLANNING
(5) State Identified Essential Business
a. Basis for Addition. Any business that the State of California has identified as an essential critical
infrastructure sector (available at: https://covidl9.ca.gov/essential-workforce can resume operation
carried out by its essential workforce. The operation of these Additional Businesses should result in
a limited increase in the number of people reentering the workforce because the Order has
previously identified twenty-six Essential Businesses and the Order requires that businesses assign
only those who cannot perform their job duties from home to work outside the home.
(6) Places of Worship
a. Basis for Addition. In -person services at places of worship that are actively managed and monitored
in a manner that ensures that social distancing, face covering and all other requirements, including
Health Officer orders, are enforced, the likelihood of transmission is significantly reduced. In
addition, the State of California has determined that it would be appropriate to allow these
businesses to resume operation.
b. Description and Conditions. In addition to following all state guidance and guidance released by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (available at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/community/organizations/index.html), which is hereby incorporated by reference and made a
requirement, places of worship may resume in -person services if its Social Distancing Protocol also
explains how the place of worship is achieving the following:
i. Vulnerable staff (those above age 50 or those with chronic health conditions) are assigned to
work that can be done from home when feasible;
ii. Vulnerable congregants (those above age 50 or those with chronic health conditions) are
strongly discouraged from participating in in -person services and strongly encouraged to
participate virtually;
iii. Work processes are reconfigured to the extent possible to increase opportunities for staff to
work from home;
iv. Attendance at religious services and cultural ceremonies at the house of worship is limited to
a maximum of 25% of building capacity or 100 individuals, whichever is lower. This
limitation on attendance will be reviewed by the State of California at least once every 21
days, beginning May 25, 2020. The State of California has indicated it will assess the impacts
of these imposed limits on public health and provide further direction as part of a phased -in
restoration of activities in places of worship. Following any change by the State of
California, the Health Officer will consider further changes as well;
v. Persons are prohibited from eating or drinking anywhere inside the place of worship;
vi. If restrooms are open, the restroom will be cleaned between uses;
vii. Where lines may form at the entry and exits of the place of worship, marking six-foot
increments at a minimum to establish where individuals should stand to maintain adequate
social distancing;
viii. Aisles in the place of worship are designated as one-way to support social distancing;
ix. Children must remain in the care of those in their household/living unit and not interact with
children of other parties at all times while visiting facilities. Additionally, places of worship
must discontinue activities and services for children (including, for example, shared play
areas) where social distancing of at least six feet cannot be maintained; and
x. Prohibiting after service gatherings.
,.r4W� SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH,
POLICY & PLANNING
(7) Outdoor Dining
a. Basis of Addition. Outdoor dining provides access to freshly prepared meals at a relatively low risk
of transmission. Because food service will be limited to outdoor areas, the overall volume of
increased activity will be modest. In addition, interactions and activities that occur outdoors carry a
lower risk of transmission than most indoor interactions and activities. Risks associated with these
operations can be substantially mitigated with conditions to ensure adequate social distancing and
limit intermixing between households.
b. Description and Conditions. Restaurants and other food facilities that were previously permitted to
provide dine -in food service, may provide outdoor sit-down meals, subject to the following
requirements and limitations in addition to those required elsewhere in the Order:
i. Outdoor seating arrangements must limit the number of patrons at a single table to no more
than six individuals, all of whom must be from the same household or living unit. Members
of separate households or living units are not allowed to dine at the same table;
ii. Tables must be arranged to ensure six feet distance between each table, such that no customer
is sitting within six feet of any other customer at a separate table;
iii. Lounge areas, like fire pits, can be occupied by multiple households or living units, as long
as six-foot distancing between households can be maintained at all times;
iv. Entertainment events are not allowed at this time;
v. Outdoor dining, placement of outdoor seating arrangements, and food service must be in
compliance with local laws, regulations, and permitting requirements, including:
1. For restaurants and other food facilities reopening after having been completely
closed for a month or longer, the operator will ensure prior to opening that:
a. All equipment, plumbing, and ventilation systems are operational;
b. All food stored on -site during closure has been maintained at proper
temperatures and is not contaminated (if in doubt, food shall be discarded);
c. All expired food shall be discarded;
d. Any insect or rodent infestation is abated;
e. The facility is thoroughly cleaned; and
f. Staff are up-to-date on food handler training or certification.
2. For all restaurants and other food facilities regardless of whether they were ever
closed:
a. If not previously performed, clean and sanitize dining areas and all other areas
that have not been in use;
b. Review the guidance provided in the State of California "COVID-19 Industry
Guidance: Dine -In Restaurants" found at htWs:Hcovidl9.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-
dine-in-restaurants.pdf. Implement the guidance criteria applicable to the
specific restaurant operation as required by this Order. This includes
employee training, employee health monitoring, use of physical separation
methods or barriers, use of personal protective equipment ("PPE") such as
face coverings in customer areas, increased cleaning and sanitation, and other
applicable guidance criteria;
c. Post near each entrance door(s) in a manner readily visible to the public and
employees both the written health and safety plan and the Social Distancing
Protocol required by this Order. Food facilities may use the "Cal/OSHA
COVID-19 General Checklist for Dine -in Restaurants" ("General Checklist")
found at https:Hcovidl9.ca.goy/pdf/checklist-dine-in-restaurants.pdf as
,.r4W� SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH,
POLICY & PLANNING
the framework for the written health and safety plan, checking the applicable
boxes. The Social Distancing Protocol (Appendix A) can be found at
https://www. smchealth.org/sites/main/files/fle-
attachments/final_appendix_a_-
_social distancing protocol_ unlocked 00 O.pdf; and
d. Designate COVID-19 supervisor/person(s) in charge to ensure the
implementation of the food facilities' health and safety plan and Social
Distancing Protocol. The designated COVID-19 supervisor/person(s) in
charge shall always be present on -site during business hours.
vi. Facilities that open for outdoor dining must offer curbside pickup, takeaway, and/or delivery
service alternatives. Lines for pickup or takeaway must be in a separate area other than the
outdoor dining area to prohibit patrons from unnecessarily accessing the outdoor dining area;
vii. The host stand must be located at the entry of the outdoor dining area so as to prohibit
patrons from unnecessarily walking through the outdoor dining area;
viii. If dogs are allowed to be in the outdoor dining area, owners must ensurre the dog remains on
a leash and at least six feet from customers who are not members of the same household;
ix. Guardians of children twelve or younger are required to ensure their children adhere to social
distancing guidelines at all times;
x. Alcohol may be sold to patrons in conjunction with a meal, but it may not be sold
independently;
xi. Bar areas must remain closed to customers;
xii. Bathrooms should be sanitized frequently;
xiii. Hand sanitizer or hand washing stations should be made available in the outdoor dining area;
and
xiv. Patrons are required to wear a face covering except when sitting at a dining table.
(8) Charter Boats
a. Basis of Addition. Charter Boats have low contact intensity and a moderate number of contacts
where interaction between the crew and captain and passengers occur in the outdoors. Businesses
that involve outdoor interactions carry a lower risk of transmission than most indoor businesses.
Also, charter boats should result in a limited increase in the number of people reentering the
workforce and the overall volume of commercial activity and mitigation measures can meaningfully
decrease the resulting public health risk.
b. Description and Conditions. Charter boats may operate and take out passengers, subject to the
following conditions:
i. The number of people aboard the boat must be limited such that at least six feet of spacing
can be maintained at all times;
ii. Rod holders must be spaced at least 6 feet apart from each other;
iii. Boats must prohibit shared handling of equipment or other items, i.e. bait and tackle or
binoculars;
iv. Before boarding, passengers must wait on the dock at least six feet apart;
v. Passengers must not shake hands, share food or drinks, or engage in any physical contact
with each other;
vi. Passengers must not shake hands, share food or drinks, or engage in any physical contact
with a crew member or the captain;
,.r4W� SAN MATED COUNTY HEALTH
PUBLIC HEALTH,
POLICY & PLANNING
vii. The boat and equipment must be washed after each trip;
viii. Bathrooms (if any) must be sanitized after each use and contain hand sanitizer or soap and
water;
ix. Hand sanitizer must be made available throughout the boat;
x. Passengers must not board the boat until the captain or crew allow boarding;
xi. Boats must offer contactless means of payment;
xii. Passengers are permitted to bring hand-held lunch coolers only. No large coolers are allowed
on the boat;
xiii. The crew, captain and passengers are required to wear face coverings at all times (except
when eating or drinking);
xiv. Rails, counters and seating areas shall be cleaned as frequently as needed to maintain sanitary
conditions; and
xv. Passengers shall disembark one at a time as instructed by the crew or captain.
Passengers of a single household or living unit are not subject to maintain social distancing with
each other. For clarity purposes, passengers of a single household or living unit are not required to
maintain a six-foot distance from each other, can have rod holders closer to each other than six feet,
and can share equipment, food or drink with each other.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
MINUTES (DRAFT)
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road — Burlingame, California
Wednesday, May 13, 2020 — 8:15 a.m.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Vice Mayor Ann O'Brien Keigh ran, Councilmember Ricardo Ortiz
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Community Development Director (CDD)
Kevin Gardiner, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Joseph Sanfilippo,
Senior Civil Engineer (SCE) Andrew Wong, Sustainability Coordinator (SC)
Sigalle Michael
Members of the Public Present: Terry Horn, Angela Pace (Blue Line Pizza), Jenny Kelleher
(President of DBID), Tina Pierinelli (My Little Nail Shop), Ryan Guibara, Travel Wizards, Riyad Salma
READ AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM APRIL MEETING
Approved.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion of COVID-19 Impacts on Small Business
EDS Sanfilippo introduced the topic.
CM Goldman noted the City Council budget study session for May 13 and notes City revenues have
declined, primarily from hotel and business closures. Private business closures are also resulting in
layoffs and declines in sales tax revenue.
CM Goldman explained that San Mateo County's Health Orders are more restrictive than the State of
California's, and Burlingame businesses must follow the County orders. She noted that curbside
pickup may be allowed soon, but dine -in restaurants are not likely to be allowed until a later phase.
San Mateo County is not reaching thresholds set by Governor Newsom to reopen as the situation
currently stands. Nursing homes are especially struggling, but all ages are susceptible to COVID-19.
Burlingame Ave Closure
Angela Pace of Blue Line Pizza commented that she believes consumer confidence will not support
an Avenue closure and would be detrimental to business. She noted curbside pickup will be more
popular than dining in due to fears of infection. She alternatively proposed that parking spaces should
instead be changed to curbside pickup entirely.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 13, 2020
(DRAFT)
Commercial broker Terry Horn of Horn and Sons inquired how much of the Avenue would be closed,
and for how long, etc.CM Goldman noted that this is still being discussed, but mentioned that there
are several logistical issues to consider, including: ensuring cars do not get blocked in the shutdown
area; fire lane access becomes difficult; how restaurants adapt to allow for sanitation (determining if
customers can use indoor restrooms, etc.); cleaning streets of excess waste, etc. She noted that a
party atmosphere/gathering spots must not occur, so delineators and limitations to household groups
may help.
Jenny Kelleher, President of the Downtown Business Improvement District (DBID), noted that there is
a goal to future -proof businesses due to ever -evolving ideas. She believes the idea of safe streets is
to promote social distancing and simultaneously allow for survivability. She noted worldwide success
in implementation of pedestrian streets, noting a 12-25% average increase in sales.
Ms. Kelleher did, however, acknowledge that many people are not all following the protocols. The
DBID's tentative proposal is to shut all of Burlingame Ave for the entire summer to prevent crowds
and make it seem like "normal life on the Ave", in an effort to discourage a festive atmosphere that
would generate crowds.
Ms. Kelleher mentioned that a possible police presence may help with enforcement of face coverings
or to restrict entry by those not following protocols. She agreed that delineated seating would likely be
necessary.
She proposed that the initiative should be ambitious and noted a desire to make the area very
pedestrian friendly. For example, no bikes or scooters on the Avenue, but rather install bike racks at
the ends of the street.
Ms. Pace questioned the goal of closing to serve as an attraction to the street. Ms. Kelleher reiterated
that it is simply to allow for safe shopping and dining to satisfy social distancing requirements.
Ms. Pace said she envisions tables outside of business frontages, with walkways designated for
pedestrians on the street. She noted that very few tables will actually fit in a business's available
sidewalk space, so for many it will likely not be worth opening. This could also reinforce negative
customer confidence.
Ms. Pace also mentioned there may be logistical problems for businesses hiring additional staff
(specifically, food runners for curbside pickup outside the closure's boundaries). Ms. Kelleher noted
that businesses in other areas are experimenting with pre -ordering food and "food runners."
Ms. Pace also acknowledged a concern about lost street parking. She mentioned that curbside pickup
customers may be negatively impacted by being forced to park further away from a business.
CM Goldman suggested Ms. Kelleher survey the entire DBID membership to gather opinions about a
Burlingame Ave closure. Ms. Kelleher promoted the DBID's Facebook group for business owners and
2
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 13, 2020
(DRAFT)
mentioned that is a good way to stay in touch with the Board. The survey will include questions about
curbside pickup, transportation, etc.
Vice Mayor O'Brien asked if the closure has support from the DBID Board, and Ms. Kelleher noted
unanimous approval for supporting the measure from those who attended the last meeting. CDD
Gardiner suggested that certain blocks may benefit from closure more than others, depending on
survey results.
Councilmember Ortiz noted that there will always be pros and cons to a closure, but he supports a
survey to push the initiative forward. He mentioned additional support from people that he has spoken
to, but potentially closing specific blocks as CDD Gardiner mentioned.
SC Michael suggested a proposal to have a specific drive -through area for designated runners for
businesses.
Riyad Salma noted his tenants' support for the closure.
Councilmember Ortiz noted many businesses have access through their back entrances for curbside
pickup, which may help even if streets are closed.
Future Agenda Topics
The Subcommittee hopes to discuss the results of the survey at the next meeting, but noted that a
special meeting would be preferable so that a closure could be examined by the full City Council at
the earliest opportunity.
Miscellaneous Discussion
CM Goldman inquired about any businesses that received Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds.
Councilmember Ortiz noted that many smaller businesses actually got funded in the second round,
which was reiterated by Mr. Horn and Mr. Salma.
Vice Mayor O'Brien questioned if businesses will be able to extend hours of service because they
must allow fewer customers to comply with social distancing. CDD Gardiner mentioned that
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) used to specify hours of operation, but more recently, CUPs have not
included hours of operation to allow greater flexibility in business operations.
Action Items
• Ms. Kelleher will survey the DBID members to gather their opinions on a Burlingame Ave
closure.
FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
9
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 13, 2020
(DRAFT)
• June 10, 2020 - Discuss Burlingame Ave closure survey results
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:19 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Sanfilippo
Economic Development Specialist
4
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee
BURLINGAME MINUTES (DRAFT)
Conference Room A
City Hall, 501 Primrose Road — Burlingame, California
Thursday, May 28, 2020 — 8:00 a.m.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Vice Mayor Ann O'Brien Keighran, Councilmember Ricardo Ortiz
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager (CM) Lisa Goldman, Community Development Director (CDD)
Kevin Gardiner, Economic Development Specialist (EDS) Joseph Sanfilippo,
Senior Civil Engineer (SCE) Andrew Wong, Streets, Storm Drains and Sewer
Division Manager (SSDSDM) Mike Heathcote and Public Works Director (PWD)
Syed Murtuza
Members of the Public Present: Jenny Kelleher (President of the Downtown Burlingame Business
Improvement District), Terry Horn
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion of Pedestrian Zones and Outdoor Dinina Options
CM Goldman mentioned that this item will likely be brought to the full City Council on June 15, so this
Special Meeting was called to gauge the Economic Development Subcommittee's input and receive a
recommendation that staff can present to the full Council. She noted that businesses are not actually
allowed to have outdoor or indoor dining under the current County Health Order. As of this meeting,
San Mateo County is in phase 2a of reopening, but the County is not meeting criteria even for phase
2b.
EDS Sanfilippo gave a brief rundown of a conference call that was held by fellow members in the
Silicon Valley Economic Development Alliance (SVEDA) and their approaches to pedestrian zones
and outdoor dining. Many are opting for parklets or using barricaded parking spaces rather than
sidewalks, while others are fully closing streets. Terry Horn noted that the City of San Carlos is
considering closing certain blocks in their Downtown for parklets to maintain fire access and outer
block access. Traffic would be closed other than for emergency vehicles.
Jenny Kelleher reintroduced the proposal to close Burlingame Ave from El Camino Real to California
Drive for an extended period of time for logistics (manpower, money, and time for barriers) and fears
that short-term closures would make the closure feel like a visitor destination or special event. A long-
term closure would promote a sense of normalcy and allow for safe social distancing.
Ms. Kelleher noted that the survey results were largely positive in favor of a Burlingame Avenue
closure, with the majority favoring a closure "until it gets cold", which would likely be October.
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 28, 2020
(DRAFT)
Restaurants raised concerns with the loss of parking space for curbside pickup, as well as losing ADA
compliance by the loss of disabled -accessible parking spaces. Comments noted that traffic on
Burlingame Avenue is increasing, and parking is already in higher demand.
Business owners are supportive in that this is a short-term event for a limited span of time.
Councilmember Ortiz said he hopes to pursue at minimum a pilot because of the overwhelming
support.
Ms. Kelleher shared her perspective as a business owner and advocated in favor of the closure,
specifically because of their previous success in other areas and their tangible financial benefits to all
sales tax generators. Though this is being done to promote safe social distancing, it is a successful
business model even in non -pandemic times.
She also noted concerns with closing specific blocks (as opposed to the full Burlingame Avenue)
because of potential crowding issues. She proposed that cross -traffic across Burlingame Avenue may
help with curbside pickup and accessibility.
PWD Murtuza suggested closing the entire Avenue, even for cross -traffic. Instead, he proposed a
detour with other cross -street closures. He noted that a complete closure is the safest method due to
concerns with a potential lack of awareness from pedestrians. This recommendation comes despite
concerns that customers or businesses may have with parking further away from Burlingame Avenue.
He also noted a concern over Hatch Lane's single -lane, one-way configuration. The businesses will
still need access to a street in the event of a closure; one possibility would be to allow an entrance
from a parking lot on Howard Avenue.
PWD Murtuza also noted potential issues with Recology trash pickup, but he still thought closing the
entire Avenue would be the best option. He advocated that the City parking lot nearest El Camino
Real remain open during the closure, to allow easy access to essential businesses in the vicinity.
He also noted sanitation concerns with outside tables and chairs. He acknowledged that Burlingame
Avenue has wide sidewalks; as such, he proposed that the parking lane be accommodated for tables
and chairs, leaving the sidewalk free for pedestrians. The unoccupied center area of the street would
offer additional pedestrian access, as well as emergency vehicle access when necessary. Allowing
pedestrians to have sidewalk access should solve any ADA compliance issues that would otherwise
arise, specifically because the accessibility ramps at the intersections would remain open..
Councilmember Ortiz advocated for the cross -streets to be open to provide additional options for
curbside pickup and traffic circulation, but PWD Murtuza noted there will be a higher volume of
pedestrians during the closure, and this may make traffic on cross -streets more dangerous than in
normal conditions. PWD Murtuza said the Department will study the idea further.
4
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 28, 2020
(DRAFT)
Terry Horn suggested there may be additional pushback from businesses that benefit from curbside
pickup. Vice Mayor O'Brien said a potential compromise could be to close only several side streets
(rather than all). She agrees that there is a concern for safety, however, as pedestrians may not be as
careful if they believe the street is entirely closed to vehicular access.
PWD Murtuza also noted that there is a policy issue for carrying alcohol in the street. There will need
to be some sort of indemnification to protect the City from liability. Ms. Kelleher asked if it will be
allowed in outdoor dining spaces; PWD Murtuza believes alcohol service is allowed by outdoor
permits, but open carry (i.e. a person not dining at an establishment) is typically not allowed.
Vice Mayor O'Brien noted that City Attorney Kathleen Kane will need to review the liability issues
associated with a street closure.
Vice Mayor O'Brien asked if a pilot would be for a few days or if it would be for a full week. CM
Goldman said that she hoped the Subcommittee would develop a recommendation on the pilot
program that could be brought to the full City Council at the June 15 meeting.
Councilmember Ortiz mentioned his vision was a pilot that closed the Avenue between Primrose
Road and El Camino Real on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, but acknowledged issues with fairness.
He is still hoping to allow key cross -streets (Lorton Avenue and Primrose Road) to remain open, but
also wants to ensure safety. He said a closure could be potentially explored next summer if this initial
pilot is successful.
PWD Murtuza noted logistics and monitoring would be much easier if a longer pilot phase is deployed,
particularly for a better study of traffic flow; he requested a minimum of a week or a month -long
closure. Ms. Kelleher advocated for the entire summer but noted this could just be the peak months in
July and August. Vice Mayor O'Brien said a shorter period can be extended but a longer one may
have difficulties if the duration needs to be shortened.
Vice Mayor O'Brien agreed with a month -long pilot, Thursday -Sunday. Depending on the response,
she said she could be persuaded to extend this closure to a full week. She noted the need to be
sensitive to both retail and restaurants, specifically in curbside pickup allowances. She mentioned the
closure may cause issues for the Fresh Market, but Councilmember Ortiz noted that the Park Road
closure would not be an issue if that side street is proposed to be closed regardless.
Ms. Kelleher noted that salons and retail actually experience boosts in sales because of pedestrian
access. Restaurants have anecdotally been texting customers when their order is ready, allowing
pedestrians to meander to other stores.
CM Goldman noted there is a general preference for pilot programs to make sure things are working.
She is concerned over ADA access if the side streets are closed to through traffic.
3
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 28, 2020
(DRAFT)
Councilmember Ortiz posited that this could eventually lead to a more long-term (or even permanent)
closure, and he would like to proceed with a small-scale pilot. He agreed that it is easier to expand an
existing program than contract. He expects the closure to be successful and anticipates long-term
viability.
PWD Murtuza noted the necessity of additional pedestrian warning signage and a switch to flashing
stoplights for stop signs if the side streets remain open.
Both Subcommittee members agreed to a one -month pilot program in which Burlingame Avenue is
closed Thursday -Sunday, while Primrose and Lorton remain open.
CM Goldman noted there are logistical issues, and staff has to check on issues related to liability,
Recology, and alcohol allowances. She also noted that restaurants have to be responsible for
cleaning up their own areas each night to minimize food on the ground, and they have to regularly
sanitize their tables and chairs.
CM Goldman noted some community members are advocating for a similar closure of Broadway, but
both Subcommittee members disagree with pursuing a Broadway closure because of its utility as a
main thoroughfare to the freeway.
PWD Murtuza mentioned that parking meters will begin charging on July 1. Even though the City
Council originally directed that the City turn the meters off until two weeks after the shelter -in -place
was lifted, the current County Health Order does not include an expiration date. As in-store and
curbside retail pickup are now allowed, Public Works will seek Council approval to turn the parking
meters on to recoup some meter revenue on the days the Avenue is open for parking.
Future Agenda Topics
EDS Sanfilippo will reach out to John Hutar to inquire if there is interest in another meeting with the
hoteliers at the June meeting.
Miscellaneous Discussion
Ms. Kelleher noted that the DBID usually works with a local Boy Scout Troop to put up flags on the
Avenue on Memorial Day and other holidays. The DBID decided not to put the flags up this year
because of health concerns, but a kind business owner took on the task independently.
Action Items
• PWD Murtuza, SCE Wong, and CDD Gardiner will work on a staff report for the Burlingame Ave
pilot closure recommendation. EDS Sanfilippo will contact John Hutar and the hoteliers to gauge
interest in a follow-up meeting in June.
FUTURE AGENDA TOPICS
Cl
City Council Economic Development Subcommittee — Minutes May 28, 2020
(DRAFT)
• June 10, 2020 - Potential meeting with John Hutar and hoteliers
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:19 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joseph Sanfilippo
Economic Development Specialist
5