HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2021.01.04CITY
BURLINGAME
I
no
Fnr[o .DUNE 6
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on January 4th, 2021
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date on Zoom at
7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by City Manager Goldman.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ortiz
4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
There was no closed session.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor O'Brien Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Councilmember Beach for navigating the City through such
a tough year when she was Mayor in 2020.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove
any item from the Consent Calendar. Mayor O'Brien Keighran pulled item 8b.
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8c, 8d, and 8e; seconded by
Councilmember Beach. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-0-1 (Vice Mayor Ortiz was
absent).
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council meeting minutes of
December 21, 2020.
b. CONFIRMATION OF THE MAYOR'S COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS FOR 2021
Mayor O'Brien Keighran explained that she is no longer the alternate on the Council of Cities
Domestic Violence Council. Therefore, this assignment needed to be removed.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to approve the confirmation of the Mayor's Council
Assignments for 2021; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed by roll call
vote 4-0-1 (Vice Mayor Ortiz was absent).
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SKYLINE PARK
PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO.85640, IN THE AMOUNT OF $422,172
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 001-2021.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
PAY RATES AND RANGES (SALARY SCHEDULES)
HR Director Morrison requested Council adopt Resolution Number 002-2021.
e. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY REPORT "SECOND UNITS: ADDING
NEW HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS"
CDD Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 003-2021.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
REDISTRICTING PARTNERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSITIONING
FROM AT -LARGE TO BY -DISTRICT COUNCILMEMBER ELECTIONS
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that on January 17, 2020, the City received a letter from
Kevin Shenkman, from the law firm Shenkman & Hughes, alleging that the City's current at -
large election system violates the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 ("CVRA"). She stated
that Mr. Shenkman's argument was based primarily on the fact that while Asian -Americans
comprise around 20% of the City's population, an Asian -American has never been elected to the
City Council. The population data is based on the 2010 Census.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the letter the City received was similar to dozens of
letters that cities across the State have received alleging violations of the CVRA. She continued
that these letters urge each City to consider the use of by -district elections to cure the violation.
She explained that the letters also make clear that if a City does not declare its intent to do so, a
lawsuit under the CVRA will follow.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that Council met in a closed session on March 2, 2020, to
consider the letter and various options available to the City. She explained that on March 16,
2020, the Council adopted Resolution Number 032-2020 reflecting its intent to transition from
at -large to by -district for Council elections.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that in August 2020, the City released a request for
proposals to several firms that are experts in the field of districting. She explained that, due to
districting being a very niche field, the City received one responsive proposal from the firm
Redistricting Partners.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that staff met with Redistricting Partners over Zoom to
discuss their proposal and the process of districting. She continued that at this meeting, a few
items were stressed:
1. Due to staffing constraints within the City, the City would need the assistance of
Redistricting Partners in conducting outreach and ensuring that this process is as
expansive as possible to touch all communities within Burlingame.
2. In order to ensure that the districts are drawn without bias, Redistricting Partners is not to
know where the current Councilmembers live. This way their residence is not taken into
consideration when drawing the maps.
3. Mapping tools for the public to draw their own version of what the district lines should
look like should be accessible via the City's website. The goal of this process is to obtain
as much public feedback and involvement as possible.
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer introduced Paul Mitchell from Redistricting Partners.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the CVRA is a state law that prohibits the use of at -large election
systems in local government if there is racially polarized voting. He further explained that
racially polarized voting is defined as differences in voting patterns that can be shown to be
correlated to race, religion, national origin, or membership in any other protected class.
Mr. Mitchell stated that the CVRA takes the principles of the Federal Voting Rights Act and
expands them in two key ways:
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
1) While Federal law uses "majority/minority" districts as a standard for vulnerability, the
CVRA only requires "ability to influence".
2) The CVRA requires that plaintiffs get full reimbursement for legal fees associated with
any successful challenge. These can be lessened or eliminated if the city follows a strict
and prompt process for districting.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the district boundaries will determine:
• Eligibility to run for office — must live within boundaries to qualify for election.
• Who votes in the election — only voters within the district vote for their Councilmember.
However, he stated that the boundary lines don't define how the City decides to govern. He
discussed the concern that the Councilmembers will only focus on their district instead of the
City as a whole. He noted that he has seen local governments successfully avoid this issue by
reinforcing the idea that once elected, the Councilmember represents the entire city.
Mr. Mitchell explained that when the districts are implemented, they will be done so in a
staggered process, where some seats will become operative in 2022, and the rest will become
operative in 2024.
Mr. Mitchell explained after the City moves to district elections, there will be a need to adjust the
lines every ten years after the Census is released. He noted that within the United States,
redistricting is an extremely politicized process and has resulted in several high -profile Supreme
Court decisions.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed gerrymandering. He explained that the term gerrymander came from a
cartoon depicting a rather serpentine looking district created by Massachusetts Governor
Elbridge Gerry during the 1800's. Governor Gerry had created district boundaries in order to
favor one parry over the other. He noted that while weirdly drawn districts don't necessarily
indicate a bad district, it could be an indication that the district boundaries were drawn by
political pressure.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed traditional redistricting principles that have been upheld by courts:
1. Each district should be of relatively equal size in terms of people not citizens
• Population equality is based on "people" not citizens or voters or other metrics
• A 10% or smaller deviation between the populations in each district is allowable
2. Districts should be contiguous —districts should not hop/jump
• An area that is one piece is "literally contiguous"
• An area that represents how the population functions or how people are connected
is "functionally contiguous".
3. Districts should maintain "communities of interest"
• Communities covered by the Voting Rights Act: Latinos, Asians, African
Americans
• While race is a community of interest, it cannot be the predominant factor in
drawing districts
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
4. Other communities of interest besides protected classes should be considered when
drawing district boundaries including:
• people living near an industry (farming, higher education, manufacturing)
• senior citizens or students (people using certain facilities)
• downtown/urban
• rural or agriculture
• homeowners or renters
5. Districts should follow City/County/local government lines
6. Districts should be compact in both appearance and function
• The districts should be similar in compactness and follow a similar pattern.
Mr. Mitchell showed images of various cities' district lines. He noted that in the past, district
lines had been drawn to bypass certain populations in order to keep incumbents in office.
However, these districts would not pass the current compactness test and therefore would need to
be redrawn.
Mr. Mitchell explained that starting in 2020, cities and counties undertaking redistricting will
also have to follow the regulations laid out under the California Fair Maps Act. This act requires
the following:
• Transparency when conducting redistricting
• Not using an incumbent or a candidate's residence as a community of interest
• Not drawing districts to advantage a political party
Mr. Mitchell stated that under the 2010 Census data, Burlingame's population is 28,806. He
explained that the 2020 Census data was supposed to be released early this year. As a result of
several issues including staffing and COVID, however, the release of the data has been pushed
back to July 2021.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the Census data is used to determine the target population size for
each district, and the `equal population' calculations that cannot exceed 10% from the largest to
the smallest district. Based on the 2010 Census data the following would be targets for
Burlingame:
• 5-District Plan: 5,761 residents
• 4-District Plan: 7,201 residents
Mr. Mitchell explained that based on Census 2020 estimates, Burlingame has approximately
30,800 residents. This is a 7.2% growth increase, while the State has shown a 6% population
increase.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed the City's demographics. He explained that the City will use the
American Community Survey calculations of Citizen Voting Age Population ("CVAP"), which
is also called "eligible voter population", to determine the ethnicity of a district. He further
explained that the City's total CVAP is 20,275. He reviewed how this is broken down by
demographic:
• Asian CVAP: 4,513, or 22% of the population
• Latino CVAP: 2,268, or 11% of the population
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
• Black CVAP: 290, or 1% of the population
• All other: 13,204, or 65% of the population
Mr. Mitchell stated that based on the above data, the most operative population for protected
classes would be the Asian population. He explained that his firm will look to see if districts can
be drawn to maximize the Asian population's strength as a community of interest. He stated that
at 22%, it is unlikely that it will be a majority/minority district.
Mr. Mitchell explained that public hearings will be held to obtain input on communities of
interest and to receive feedback on potential districting plans prior to Council adoption. Input
from the public will be provided in public hearings or by utilizing a "Community of Interest
Worksheet". This worksheet will help outline and identify perceived communities of interests by
the public. He added that there will be an online mapping tool on the City's website for people
to draw their communities of interest and suggested district lines.
Mr. Mitchell explained that the first two public hearings will be purely about community
outreach. He explained that these hearings will focus on public outreach by allowing the
community a place to raise concerns, ask questions, and provide feedback. He explained that the
City will wait for the 2020 Census data to be released prior to holding the third and fourth
hearings. He noted that prior to the third and fourth hearings, the City will have to make the
draft map of the district boundary lines available to the public for at least seven days.
Mr. Mitchell stated that at the fifth hearing, the Council will vote on adopting the proposed
district boundaries. He explained that his firm would then work with the San Mateo County
Elections Office to make any necessary adjustments as the Elections Office's map is based off of
parcel data, while his firm uses Census geography.
Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the time difference is between the release of the Census
data and the release of the draft maps. Mr. Mitchell responded that when the data is released, his
staff will work with the City. He noted that after the Census data is released, it will take a month
or so to process the reallocation of prison population into their respective cities. Prison
populations are originally counted towards the jurisdictions in which the prison is located.
Therefore, a process is undertaken to reallocate those numbers from where the prison is to where
the individual's home is located. He explained that this should have a very negligible impact on
Burlingame, but some Census blocks might see an increase. He stated that once that is done,
maps can be quickly drafted.
Mayor O'Brien Keighran noted that due to the impacts of the pandemic, most of this process will
be online. She asked how can people who do not have access to a computer participate and give
feedback. Mr. Mitchell responded that this is a challenge across the state. He explained that
Redistricting Partners and its subcontractor Imprenta will coordinate community outreach with
different organizations and individuals in the city. This will help to spread the word and ensure a
wide response. He noted that this issue had been stressed by City staff in their meetings.
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
City Clerk Hassel -Shearer added that staff will also be utilizing the Library's curbside pickup,
the Chamber's Fresh Market, and other community events in order to educate the public and
obtain feedback.
Councilmember Beach asked what the approach is for multilingual outreach. Mr. Mitchell
responded that the subcontractor Imprenta is well versed in multilingual outreach through
mailers, emails, and local media. He noted that his firm also recently hired Sophia Garcia from
the Dolores Huerta Foundation to assist in outreach.
Councilmember Colson commented that the City undertook outreach for various development
projects and that Zoom chat has been an informative way to interact with the community. She
asked if this is a viable way for community feedback. Mr. Mitchell replied in the affirmative.
He added that staff will ensure that the Zoom chats are saved at the end of each meeting.
Councilmember Colson asked what happens if a cohesive boundary cannot be found within a
community of interest. Mr. Mitchell responded that drawing districts based on racial
composition is a binary test; if you know there is a majority/minority district that can be drawn,
but you don't, then you could be in violation of the Federal Voting Rights Act. He continued
that if you don't fall into that binary test, then under the CVRA, if there's a population that
claims its voting power has been diluted in elections, then it is necessary to make sure that the
district lines are drawn to improve their ability to influence the outcome of an election.
Councilmember Colson asked how the transition will occur from at -large to by -district elections.
She explained that in 2022, the City has three seats up for election, and in 2024 there are two.
Mr. Mitchell responded that the transition is a two-step process. He explained that in 2022, the
City will elect three members from districted areas, while still having two members that were
elected at -large. He stated that the two that were elected at -large can be from anywhere in the
city (they could live in the same district as someone that was just elected from the districted
election.) He continued that in 2024, when the other two seats are up for election, they will be
from the two districts that weren't seated in 2022. He noted that an at -large Councilmember
whose term isn't up until 2024 might live in a district that is going to election in 2022.
Therefore, the Councilmember would need to choose whether to continue their at -large term and
then have no seat to run for in 2024, or run for their district seat in 2022.
Councilmember Brownrigg commented that he thinks Burlingame residents will be sad to hear
that they won't have a say in all of the Councilmembers that represent them and will only have a
voice once every four years. He asked if the City can't develop a plan that maximizes a
community of interests voting power, then why move to district elections. Mr. Mitchell
responded that the law is not outcome based. The law is essentially saying that if you have
racially polarized voting, then you're not allowed to have at -large voting. He explained that
under federal law, you could potentially show that you don't have a remedy of transitioning to
district elections. He stated that this is currently not the case under State law. He continued that
there are currently court cases challenging the CVRA; however, it is unclear what the outcome
will be.
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
Councilmember Brownrigg asked how the districting process considers future neighborhoods.
Mr. Mitchell responded that the data set they are using to determine the districts is from the 2020
Census. Therefore, it does not consider future population growth. He explained that there is the
10% buffer for districts that you can play around with, but you have to look at doing this in
context of the other criteria. As an example, he stated that if you are projecting growth in a
certain neighborhood, you could play around with the 10% buffer and allocate more population
to that neighborhood. In doing that, however, you might make another district lose 2% of a
community of interest, and that may not be a trade-off the City wants to make.
Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened up the item for public comment.
Ray Larios asked for clarification between parcels versus Census tracks and if Redistricting
Partners factor in hard to count Census tracts. Mr. Mitchell explained that the Census has a
geographic set of layers that it uses to count people. The smallest unit is the Census block, and
Census tracks are sets of census block groups. He explained that parcels are lot lines of
properties within the county. He continued that hard to count Census tracts are areas that are
usually underrepresented in the Census. He explained that even if they find more people in these
areas due to public outreach, they have to draw the districts based on the Census data. (comment
submitted via Zoom chat).
Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution 004-2021 authorizing the City
Manager to execute the agreement with Redistricting Partners; seconded by Councilmember
Colson. The motion passed by roll call vote 4-0-1 (Vice Mayor Ortiz was absent).
b. UPDATE ON THE SOFT STORY BUILDINGS AD HOC COMMITTEE
CDD Gardiner stated that the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report and
adopted the General Plan on January 7, 2019. He explained that the General Plan includes the
Community Safety Element (Chapter VIII), which establishes goals and policies designed to
protect public health and safety, provide for sound emergency preparedness planning, and build
in resiliency. He stated that among the hazards addressed in the Community Safety Element are
seismic safety hazards, which can be influenced by ground shaking, topography, groundwater
conditions, and type of building construction.
CDD Gardiner explained that a soft story building is usually a building that is multi -floor, has an
open arear on the bottom, such as a car port, and residential or commercial on top. He continued
that these buildings are dangerous as they are top heavy, and can topple easily during an
earthquake.
CDD Gardiner explained that General Plan Goal CS-7 calls for protecting people and buildings
in Burlingame by reducing the risks associated with geologic and seismic hazards. He continued
that among the polies supporting this goal is Policy CS-7.2: Residential Upgrades:
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
"Require that any residential facility that is being increased more than 50 percent
assessed value or physical size conform to current life -safety engineering standards
throughout the entire structure. Encourage owners of residential buildings with known
structural defects such as unreinforced garage openings, "soft story " construction,
unbolted foundations, and inadequate sheer walls to take steps to remedy the problem
by retrofitting buildings to meet current life -safety engineering standards. Form an ad
hoc committee to investigate and describe the seismic risk posed by pre-1980 wood
frame "soft story" buildings in Burlingame and to evaluate the costs and benefits of
potential actions that could be pursued by the City. The ad hoc committee shall report
its findings to the City Council before the end of 2020. "
CDD Gardiner explained that the formation of the ad hoc committee was delayed by the
COVID-19 pandemic and the disruptions to City services. He continued that in recent months,
staff has been assembling a proposed committee (in coordination with Burlingame
Neighborhood Network representatives), and conducting preliminary research.
CDD Gardiner explained that staff reviewed ordinances from other cities on this matter
including: Alameda, Berkeley, Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, San Francisco, Pasadena, and Santa
Monica.
CDD Gardiner stated that staff hopes to Ell the ad hoc committee with a variety of expertise. He
stated that the proposed Soft Story Buildings ad hoc committee includes the following
individuals:
Name
Area of Expertise/Affiliations
Dena Gunning
Community Risk & Resiliency Specialist,
CCFD
Janiele Maffei
Chief Mitigation Officer, California
Earthquake Authority
Dominic Chu
Structural Engineer
Peter Sung
Structural Engineer
Building Contractor
Terry Nagel
Burlingame Neighborhood Network
Justin Moresco
Civil Engineer with expertise in seismic
mitigation
Randy Grange
Architect
Apartment Building Owner
Residential Realtor — Multiunit
Ron Karp
Commercial Building Owner or Broker
Ryan Guibara
Commercial Building Owner/Developer
Banking/Finance
Lisa Lohman, Farmers Insurance Group
Property Insurance
Rhovy Lyn Antonio
CAApartment Association
Gina Zari
Government Affairs Director, San Mateo
County Association of Realtors SAMCAR
Georgette Naylor
Chamber of Commerce
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
Rik Kasu a
Burlingame CERT Coordinator
American Institute of Artchitects AIA
Planning Commissioner s
CDD Gardiner reviewed the timeline for the ad hoc committee. He stated that the first meeting
would be late January or early February; there would be three or four committee meetings, with a
report to the City Council in the fall of 2021.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the potential list of soft story buildings is a public document.
CDD Gardiner responded that the list is with staff, but it has not been published. He mentioned
that it will be given to the ad hoc committee. He stated that members of the public could see the
list by request.
Councilmember Brownrigg asked if by creating this list and adding properties to it, has the City
created more liability for these properties. CDD Gardiner responded that he does not believe so.
He stated that more follow up needs to be done on the properties on the list. He continued that
some lenders have already looked at buildings and have made determinations about their soft
story characteristics.
Councilmember Colson asked if there will be some sort of mechanism in place to get these
identified buildings retrofitted. CDD Gardiner responded that this is something that he wants the
ad hoc committee to explore. He stated that he is hopeful that the committee can come up with a
way to map out a plan in which building owners can get their buildings retrofitted.
Councilmember Colson asked if there could be a way to finance retrofits of buildings that show
they have affordable units. CDD Gardiner responded that this would be something he wants the
committee to look into.
Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the outreach is going to be in relation to the work the
committee is doing. CDD Gardiner replied that the committee would be looking into how best to
conduct public outreach.
Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment.
Former Mayor Terry Nagel stated that the Burlingame Neighborhood Network strongly supports
the City's exploration of options on making soft story buildings safer. (comment submitted via
publiccomments(ib,burlin ag me.org)
Councilmember Beach commented that the hardest part is tackling the end goal of safety without
running into unintended consequences such as losing the affordable housing aspect.
Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment.
Council thanked CCD Gardiner for his work on this matter.
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND
ANNOUNCMENTS
There were no Council committee and activities reports.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety &
Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and
Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin.ag me.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Brien Keighran adjourned meeting at 8:55pm.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel -Shearer
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council January 4, 2021
Approved Minutes