Loading...
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