Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2021.02.01CITY BURLINGAME uFaT[o J u[ 6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on February 1, 2021 5:30 P.M STUDY SESSION a. STUDY SESSION: FIRST PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TRANSITION FROM AT -LARGE TO BY -DISTRICT ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL SEATS City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that on January 17, 2020, the City of Burlingame received a letter from Kevin Shenkman, of 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 explained that Mr. Shenkman alleges that the City's current voting system has "dilute[d] the ability of Asians... to elect candidates of their choice or otherwise influence the outcome of the City's council elections." City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the letter that the City received is one of dozens of similar letters that cities across the state have received alleging violations of the CVRA. She continued that these letters have generally alleged that, in the target communities, minorities who comprise a meaningful percentage of the population have not been elected to public office. She stated that Mr. Shenkman urges each City to consider the use of by -district elections to cure the violation. She stated that the letters also make clear that if a City does not declare its intent to switch to by -district elections, a lawsuit under the CVRA will follow. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that Council met in closed session on March 2, 2020, to consider the letter and the various options available to the City. She continued 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. She stated that on January 4, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 004-2021 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Redistricting Partners for the purpose of transitioning from at -large elections to by -district Councilmember elections. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that since then, the City has started to conduct public outreach in regards to district elections. She mentioned that the City has picked a slogan, "Five Districts, One Burlingame," which represents the Council's commitment to act in the best interests of the community as a whole. She stated that the City has been working with the firm Imprenta to conduct public outreach such as emailing all registered votes that have an email on file and reaching out to 50 community organizations. She added that the City has been using the Library's curbside pickup to distribute information and that she met with the Youth Advisory Committee about making public service announcements. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer introduced Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners. Mr. Mitchell introduced his staff member Sophia Garcia, who is helping with public outreach. Mr. Mitchell explained that the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) is a narrow law that prohibits the use of at -large elections 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 explained that the CVRA differs from the Federal Voting Rights Act in how it deals with remedies for racially polarized voting. He stated that under federal law, you only need to change to a districted election system when a majority/minority district can be drawn to deal with a vote dilution claim from an at -large election. He explained that the CVRA expands the federal law and holds that you don't have to prove that a majority/minority district can be drawn but rather that if districted, the protected class would be able to better influence the outcome of the election. Additionally, under the CVRA, the plaintiffs are fully reimbursed for legal fees associated with any successful challenge. The fees can be lessened or eliminated if the city follows a strict and prompt process for districting. Mr. Mitchell explained that the districting process is the initial process of creating the election district boundaries. 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, Councilmembers represent the entire city. Mr. Mitchell explained that redistricting occurs every ten years after the Census data is released. He explained that the district lines are adjusted to accommodate for population growth or decrease and community data. Mr. Mitchell discussed 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 1800s. Governor Gerry created these boundaries to favor one party 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 as a result of 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" OA • 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 include Latinos, Asians, and Black individuals • While race is a community of interest, it cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts 4. Other communities of interest that are considered when drawing district boundaries include: • 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 • The definition of compact can change from state to state Mr. Mitchell explained California's definition of compact. He stated that it is "not bypassing nearby populated areas in favor of more distant populated areas". He showed some examples 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 mentioned that you can have a non -compact district, but for the right reasons. He explained that one reason could be that a boundary, such as a railroad track, could force a district to be less compact. 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 has been pushed to July 2021. Mr. Mitchell explained that the Census data is used to determine the target population size for each 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 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 • Black CVAP: 290, or 1% of the population • All other: 13,204, or 65% of the population Mr. Mitchell explained that he expects to see the Asian CVAP and the Latino CVAP increase a little bit in the new Census data. Mr. Mitchell stated that in keeping with the Fair Maps Act, the City has a public website with a special page dedicated to the districting process. He stated that this webpage will be continuously updated with all new information, and that it will be in place for a decade. www.burlin ag me.org/districtelections Mr. Mitchell explained that the webpage includes the Community of Interest Worksheet (which can be found in English, Spanish, and Chinese). He continued that the webpage will also have a mapping tool that the public can use to draw their own communities of interest, and later, actual City districts. He stated that initially, this tool will have the 2010 Census data, and it will be updated with new data as it is released. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the next steps in the process. He stated that there will be public hearings held to obtain input on communities of interest and to receive feedback on potential districting plans prior to adoption. • Feb 1 It - I It public hearing • May 3rd — 2nd public hearing • TBD — online outreach/mapping tool demonstration • TBD — 3rd public hearing — draft map review • TBD — 4th public hearing • TBD — adoption Mr. Mitchell explained that once the 2020 Census data is released, his firm will begin to draw preliminary district maps for the City. However, he noted that pursuant to State law, they will wait 21 days until after the data is released to publicize their first preliminary maps for public review. He added that the two hearings after the Census data is released are for public input on draft maps. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if the mapping tool includes population. Mr. Mitchell responded in the affirmative. He mentioned that there will be data for various ethnic groups as well as from the American Community Survey that highlights education, income, and renter vs owner. 2 Councilmember Beach asked when the Census data will be released. Mr. Mitchell responded that the data will most likely be released around July 30, 2021. He added that the City then won't release draft maps for public input until end of August or early September. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer mentioned that the Community of Interest form is now available online and can be done as a survey via smartphone. An individual voiced concern that if voter turnout is not equal amongst the districts, then a candidate in one district could be elected with far fewer votes than a candidate in another district. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin ag me.org) Mr. Mitchell responded that districts are drawn based on population and not based on voter registration. He explained that this could lead to higher voter turnout in one district over another. He stated that this could be due to one portion of town having more kids than another or more non -US citizens over another. He added that the Supreme Court ruled that the only acceptable data to use is the total population number from the Census. An individual asked if the Councilmember will have to live in the district that they are representing. (comment submitted via publiccomment?.bburlinizame.org) Mr. Mitchell responded in the affirmative. An individual stated that the City is transitioning to district elections due to persons of color not having served on City Council. She asked if a person of color is not elected, will the City have to redraw the district lines. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&burlin a�g). Mr. Mitchell stated that around the state, switching to district elections has yielded more candidates of color. He added that the goal of districting is to ensure that Latinx, Asian, and Black individuals (groups protected under the Federal Voting Rights Act) have the ability to elect a candidate of their choice. An individual discussed the City's plans to create a new neighborhood on North Rollins. They asked how this population increase would be accounted for in the districting process. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin_a�g). Mr. Mitchell explained that population growth does happen, but that the law requires cities to use the Census data to draw lines. He noted that the City does have a buffer of around 550 people that can be used to anticipate population growth in a district, but that it can be very tricky to balance. An individual asked what happens if a district has no one run for Council. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&burlin ame.org). Interim Attorney Spansail responded that more research will have to be done in regards to this question and that it will be addressed at the next public hearing on districting. 5 An individual asked how long someone has to have residency in a district before they can run for that district's council seat. (comment submitted via publiccommentkburlin ag me.org). Mr. Mitchell responded that when you file paperwork to run for office, you sign an affidavit that says you live in that district. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer mentioned that as the former candidate filing officer for the County, she knows that the County does check the address you put on your filing paperwork against what your voter registration address is. An individual asked if there is a date by which the new boundaries have to be adopted in order to be used in the next election. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that there are two dates. One date, as stated in the settlement agreement with Shenkman and Hughes, is the beginning of April 2022. The other deadline is from the County Elections Office and is in July 2022. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer confirmed that the City hopes to have the districts drawn well before the April 2022 settlement deadline in order to give potential candidates enough time to find out if they are eligible and to raise money for their campaigns. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that she had received questions concerning the background of the transition. Therefore, she asked Interim City Attorney Spansail to give a brief synopsis on the legal case and settlement. Interim City Attorney Spansail explained that in January 2020, the City received a letter from Shenkman & Hughes detailing that the City would be sued under the CVRA if the City did not switch to district elections. He continued that the City then looked at what other cities had done while in this situation, and that eventually the City entered into a tolling agreement with Shenkman & Hughes and committed to switching to district elections. An individual asked if renter and home -owner data would be included in the mapping tool. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded in the affirmative. An individual asked if the current Councilmembers' addresses are factored into the districting process. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that the Fair Maps Act disallows the use of the addresses of candidates or incumbents as a community of interest during the process. He stressed that Redistricting Partners does not know where any of the current Councilmembers lives. An individual asked how public outreach will be handled to the communities that might not have reliable internet connection. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). City Clerk Hassel -Shearer responded that the City will conduct outreach at the Burlingame Farmer's Market, utilize the Library's curbside pickup, and work with Burlingame High School students to disseminate information. 2 An individual voiced concern about how drawing districts will address the issue of vote dilution among minority populations. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that the districts will be drawn in compliance with State and Federal laws as well as by utilizing all available data. An individual asked if you have to be a registered voter to run for office. (comment submitted via Zoom chat) City Clerk Hassel -Shearer replied in the affirmative. An individual asked why districts would be drawn based on population rather than eligible voters. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that representation is a key factor. He explained that if districts are uneven in population, then they are uneven in representation. He continued that basing districts on voter eligibility can lead to the same voter disenfranchisement that you are trying to solve. An individual asked if district elections will utilize majority vote or ranked choice voting. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). City Clerk Hassel -Shearer response that the current system in place is majority vote, and that system does not change with the change to district elections. An individual asked how the data in the community of interest worksheets is evaluated and weighed. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that the community of interest data will be compiled and made public. He noted that it would help his team in identifying neighborhoods and their makeup. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer asked Mr. Mitchell to explain the transition process. Mr. Mitchell explained that the transition will happen over two elections cycles. He stated that in 2022, there are three at -large terms ending. Therefore, there will be three district seats on the November 2022 ballot. He noted that in November 2024, the City will complete the transition by placing the remaining two district seats on the ballot. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer clarified that if you had a Councilmember whose term ended in 2024, but their district was up in 2022, that Councilmember could choose to stay in his or her seat until 2024 but would then have no seat to run for in 2024. Alternatively, the candidate could choose to run in the open district in 2022, giving up the remaining two years of his or her term. If a Councilmember with a term ending in 2024 won a seat in 2022, then there would be a vacancy on the Council that would have to be filled via a pre -defined process. An individual asked for more background on cumulative voting and if the City is considering it. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). 7 Mr. Mitchell responded that like ranked choice voting and majority vote, cumulative voting is another method of counting votes for candidates. An individual asked what other outreach methods the City is undertaking. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). City Clerk Hassel -Shearer responded that the City is working with over 50 different community organizations and local religious centers. She added that there would be a flyer for the next hearing and the community of interest worksheet included in the Spring Parks and Recreation Guide, which is delivered to every household. An individual asked if you have to be a U.S citizen or green card holder in order to run for office. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg commented that he hopes candidates will take a holistic view of the City in order to represent the interests of all and not just their district. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer commented that all the information from the study session will be on the website, as well as the community of interest forms and any new information going forward. www.burlin.ag me.org/districtelections Councilmember Colson asked if precincts will be utilized when drawing the district lines. Mr. Mitchell responded that California does not have a requirement to follow precincts. Instead, the precinct lines would be adjusted after the district lines are drawn. Mayor O'Brien Keighran adjourned the study session. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by CDD Gardiner 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. N. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor O'Brien Keighran reviewed the upcoming events taking place in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PROCLAMATION HONORING MARK LUCCHESI ON HIS RETIREMENT Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that the proclamation is to recognize Mark Lucchesi on his retirement from Mollie Stone's after 50 years in the grocery business. She read a proclamation in his honor that discussed his career and his plans for retirement including surfing, podcasting, and spending quality time with his loved ones. Vice Mayor Ortiz commented that Mr. Lucchesi is always willing to help out at different community fundraisers. Councilmember Colson commented that Mr. Lucchesi's friendly demeanor will be missed on her daily trips to the grocery store. Councilmember Brownrigg commented that Mr. Lucchesi created a culture of friendliness in his store that always made it a joy to visit. Councilmember Beach commented that Mr. Lucchesi created an amazing culture at Mollie Stone's and thanked him for his involvement in various charities. City Librarian McCulley commented that Mr. Lucchesi was a Library Board member from 2002 to 2005 and that he contributed to fundraising for several library events. He continued that his generosity and support for the schools has been immense and that he will be missed. Mr. Lucchesi thanked Council for all the kind words. He thanked his wife for all the support over the 48 years they have been together. Lastly, he thanked his parents for the work ethic they instilled him and all the support they gave him. b. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HUMAN TRAFFICKING MONTH Mayor O'Brien Keighran read the proclamation recognizing January 2021 as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. Pamela Estes from the San Mateo County Human Trafficking Program stated human trafficking can happen in plain sight, during the day, and to a range of different people. She stated that in 2019, 304 individuals in the county were identified as being exploited by human trafficking. Ms. Estes thanked the Council for bringing more awareness to this issue. I 7. PUBLIC COMMENT James Ruigomez from the San Mateo County Building Trades Council discussed the difference between prevailing wage and community wage rate. He encouraged the City to support community wage. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Brownrigg pulled items 8b and 8d. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8c, and 8e; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR JANUARY 19, 2021 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council adopt the City Council Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2021. b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RIGHT OF WAY RELIQUISHMENTS FROM CALTRANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE US IO1BROADWAY INTERCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Councilmember Brownrigg asked DPW Murtuza if he was correct that the City would gain control over land around the Broadway overpass. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that in the original project, there was land that Caltrans was responsible for landscaping. He explained that he wanted to make sure that the landscaping was going to happen. DPW Murtuza clarified that the land that Caltrans is relinquishing to the City includes portions of the Broadway and Rollins Road intersection. He added that the landscaping that Councilmember Brownrigg was referring to is outside of this area. He stated that Caltrans is working with the Transportation Authority to get that funded and landscaped. Councilmember Colson voiced support for the City purchasing land as it comes up along the Bayfront to assist the San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency in protecting the bayfront. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Manito Velasco asked that before the City take over land from another agency, that the City consider the conditions of the intersection. He added that he didn't want to see the City saddled with making improvements that should have been done before the land was handed over. (comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlin ag me.org). Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. 10 Councilmember Beach asked if Caltrans fulfilled their obligations to the City in regards to the land. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. He commented that the project took several years and added that there have been changes to the design of this project over time. Councilmember Beach asked that Public Works look into Mr. Velasco's concerns. DPW Murtuza replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 007-2021; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CULVERT CROSSING REPAIRS — PHASE 1, CITY PROJECT NO.84920, BY TRINET CONSTRUCTION, INC. DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 008-2021. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF A $15,000 DONATION AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 ADOPTED BUDGET TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM THE DONATION TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT JAIL RENOVATION PROJECT Mayor O'Brien Keighran commented that a very generous anonymous donor donated $15,000 to the Police Department. She stated that the Police Department decided to use the funds to help convert an old jail cell to sleeping quarters for their employees. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced support for this decision. He stated that the Police Department's solution was innovative and helped to address the issue of officers needing to travel long distances to get to work. Chief Matteucci thanked the donor and Council for their support. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 009-2021; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call, 5-0. e. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 Finance Director Augustine requested Council receive the Quarterly Investment Report for the period ending December 31, 2020. f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION 11 City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Beautification Commission. g. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Planning Commission. h. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL ONE VACANCY ON THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill one vacancy on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. INTRODUCATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND 220 PARK ROAD — BURLINGAME LLC, RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT 220 PARK ROAD (HISTORIC POST OFFICE BUILDING) CDD Gardiner explained that on April 9, 2020, 220 Park — Burlingame, LLC (Sares Regis / Dostart Development Company) ("Developer") filed an application for the adaptive reuse and redevelopment of the former Post Office property at 220 Park Road. The Developer's proposal also included plans for an approximately 6,900 square foot portion of the adjacent City property known as Lot E. CDD Gardiner explained that the proposed project includes a new six -story, approximately 140,000 square foot office building, approximately 11,915 square feet of ground floor retail, and approximately 280 parking spaces within a two -level underground parking garage, a portion of which extends below the adjacent City -owned Parking Lot E. CDD Gardiner commented that on November 23, 2020, the Burlingame Historic Preservation Commission (composed of the Planning Commission) approved listing the Post Office building on the City's Local Register of Historic Places. He continued that during a public hearing on January 11, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development agreement terms between the City of Burlingame and the Developer. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the development agreement. CDD Gardiner introduced the City's outside counsel for this project, Edward Schaffer of Burke, Williams, & Sorensen, and members of the Developer's team including Andrew Turco, Mollie Ricker, Steve Dostart, and Dave Hopkins. 12 Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to request that the City Clerk read the proposed ordinance title; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call, 5-0. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilmember Colson made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call, 5-0. Dave Hopkins thanked staff and the public for their input on the project. Andrew Turco reviewed the background of the project's progress through the Planning Commission and City Council: • Feb 2020: City Council — Study Session 1 • Mar 2020: City Council — Study Session 2 • May 2020: Joint City Council -Planning Commission —Study Session • Jul 2020: Planning Commission — CEQA Scoping • Sep 2020: Community Open House • Nov 2020: CEQA Published • Nov 2020: Historic Preservation Commission — Project Listing • Jan 2021: Planning Commission —Development Agreement Terms Study Session • Feb 2021: City Council —Development Agreement Hearing Mr. Turco explained that there are seven key terms to the development agreement: 1. Permit and Construction Commitments — The commitment to take a site that is underutilized and turn it into something that people will enjoy using. 2. Underground Easement & Public Parking — Allows for underground parking to be constructed in an efficient way, and to be used by the public. It will add an additional 275 parking spaces. 3. Town Square Funding — Committed to $2 million for the development of the Town Square that is adjacent to the development. 4. Town Square Improvements — Improvements that the City has full discretion to use; a way for things to continue to move forward smoothly. 5. Post Office and Construction Staging Use — The ability to use Lot E and some parking stalls to stage equipment; lays out the mechanism for how the Post Office will move and stage on Lot E during construction. 6. Aboveground Easement & Town Square Terrace — This area will sit above the parking lot and be used by the tenant and public. 7. Interim Use Commitments — Fence wrap for the site, addressing graffiti and maintenance of the site, as well as historic preservation. Mr. Turco stated that the Developer will pay the City $3.5 million in affordable housing linkage fees and $1.4 million in impact fees. Mayor O'Brien Keighran noted that the term sheet states that "The charge for public parking may not exceed 125% of the rate the City charges at the Lorton Street Garage." She asked for an explanation for how the Developer got to this high of a rate. She explained that she thought the 13 garage was supposed to be a public amenity for the community to use on evenings and on weekends. Therefore, she stated that she hoped the Developer would charge the same as the City and utilize City paid parking hours (free after 6:00 p.m. and on Sundays and holidays). Mr. Hopkins responded that they modeled the fees off of the Redwood City parking plans in use at private office buildings. He stated that the proposed 125% is nowhere near the cost recovery of running a parking garage. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that this could be discussed further with Council, but she was concerned that a high rate would make the garage less likely to be viewed as a public amenity. Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed the development agreement's language concerning storing the Post Office's facade on Lot E and in the curbside parking spaces on Park Road. She asked how many parking spots would be utilized. Additionally, she voiced concern that the projected 19 months the Developer would need these spaces was a long time and wondered why the City wasn't charging a fee for the Developer to use those spaces. CDD Gardiner replied that the City was balancing the value of preserving the historical portions of the Post Office with the related costs. Therefore, the thought was to waive the cost of the parking spaces for the first 24 months of usage; after this time period, fees would accrue. Mr. Dostart added that it will cost approximately $5 million to move the historical portions of the Post Office. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked her colleagues to consider this issue. She noted that her expectation is that the Post Office's historical portions are preserved. Therefore, if the City is being asked to store those portions on its own lot, then there should be payment. Councilmember Beach thanked staff for working through the Council's concerns and addressing them in the proposed development agreement. She noted that she appreciated building out the terrace for public use, the 5% escalator, and the flexibility built into the $2 million for the City's future Town Square. She asked when the City would receive the $2 million for the Town Square. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that the City would receive it post -closing. He stated that this is still a moving date and that the City doesn't have control over when the project closes. He added that there is a five-year time frame. CDD Gardiner explained that when the superstructure permit is issued, the $2 million is due. Mr. Shaffer confirmed that there is an outside close date of five years. He added that once the Developer has pulled all the construction permits, one of which is the superstructure permit, the Developer would need to pay the $2 million. Councilmember Beach voiced concern about waiting five years for the $2 million to develop the Town Square. Mr. Shaffer responded that five years was used to ease the fears of the lenders for the project. He continued that the lenders thought five years would be enough time for potential customers for the building to be found and to recoup some of the costs. Mr. Hopkins added that the time frame was established to line up the fees with the land closing and with the construction finance closing. He stated that this is a $210 million project, and that they wanted to make sure they lined everything up to close at one time so that they could move forward with everything together. 14 Councilmember Beach asked if the $2 million fee could be retracted in anyway once it has been paid. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that there is no way to retract the fee once paid. Councilmember Colson stated she has confidence in staff, Council, and the Developer in insuring that this complicated project comes to fruition. She stated that she understands the need for the five-year timeframe, but she hopes it will be started sooner than that. She asked about having a parking attendant and if the parking spaces are metered. Mr. Dostart explained that individuals will receive a time -stamped ticket when they enter and pay when they leave. He added that the parking attendant is there to make sure things run smoothly. Mr. Dostart stated that they are hoping to break ground this fall. He continued that they want to move forward with construction regardless of whether they have a tenant or not. He hoped to have the outside of the building done by 2023. Councilmember Colson commented that a benefit of storing the Post Office facade in the City's parking spaces is that it will be kept locally. Therefore, the public will be able to watch the progress of the project. She voiced concern about language in the development agreement that the $2 million for the Town Square could be kept in the City's General Fund. She explained that it should be put into an account to accrue interest and not in the General Fund where future Councils may utilize the funds for other needs. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that staff believes the money coming from the project should be unencumbered and that when it comes into the City, staff will be able to attach strings to it. Councilmember Colson stated that she wanted to ensure that the funds were earmarked for the Town Square. City Manager Goldman replied that this could be done through resolution. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked when Council would vote on this resolution. City Manager Goldman explained that Council might want to wait until the Town Square project is further along in order to have a better picture of what the cost might be. Vice Mayor Ortiz echoed Councilmember Colson's statements and agreed that he likes the agreement and is excited to see the project come to fruition. He voiced concern about the parking fees but saw the need for a parking attendant. He added that he concurred with Councilmember Colson that the $2 million shouldn't be kept in the General Fund. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked about the culvert cleanout. DPW Murtuza responded that the culvert relocation project is not part of the Post Office project due to its high price tag. He added that it could be a part of the Town Square project. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked how the historic portions of the Post Office will be protected from the elements when they are stored in the City's parking spaces. Mr. Turco responded that they work with various consultants to insure the protection of the different portions of the building during its storage. He added that documentation of the process and updates would be filed with the City's Building Department. 15 Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the agreement includes penalties if the fagade is damaged during storage. CDD Gardiner replied that if damage occurs, the Developer is responsible for its repair. Mayor O'Brien Keighran voiced concern about the protection of the historical portions of the Post Office. She asked if there were provisions in the development agreement to ensure the building's protection. CDD Gardiner replied that unlike previous projects, this project includes a high level of detail that will ensure the building's protections. He noted that the Developer is working with historical preservation experts. Mr. Turco added that the Developer is committed to following the Department of the Interior's guidelines in regards to the historic preservation and restoration. He continued that in the event that something did happen to the fagade, they are preserving the Lorton side and can recreate any aspects that were damaged. Councilmember Colson explained that she and CDD Gardiner had talked with the National Director of the National Trust for Historic Preservation about this project. She continued that common practice if damage occurred would be to replicate and replace it. She commented that she believes that the developers would be committed to replicate, replace, or repair anything if it were damaged. Interim City Attorney Spansail stated that the City's Historic Ordinance includes language that states that anything of historic significance will be restored or repaired. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. An individual asked what the developer's plans are if they cannot fill the office space. (comment submitted via publiccomment(&,burlin a�g). Mr. Dostart responded that they have no worries about filling the retail space. An individual voiced concern that the building is too large for the downtown area. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin a�g). Jennifer Pfaff commented that she believes that the project and open space will greatly contribute to the downtown space and will create a lasting legacy for the city. (comment submitted via publiccommentnburlin a�g). Mr. Ruigomez commented that he received an email from Devcon Construction, which is a union contractor, about work on the project. He emphasized that he wants to see union workers on the project as it is good for the community. Ross Bruce, representing the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, commented that the Chamber supports this development as the added business and additional workers will help stimulate the local Burlingame economy. He added that he supports the development project. Mr. Morrow asked where the developer will get the 167 construction jobs and why the developer is getting non -signatory bids for the project. 16 Mr. Evans, a local carpenter union member, voiced his support for the project. David Kearns asked about the parking impact of the project. Mayor O'Brien closed public comments. In response to the labor question, Mr. Hopkins responded that they selected the best general contractor in the Bay Area for the project. He continued that Devcon does the best work in the area, and 97% of their work is done with union labor. In response to the parking question, CDD Gardiner responded that the City's parking garage will open prior to the Post Office project beginning construction. Councilmember Brownrigg asked what the hours of the attendant would be. Ms. Ricker responded that the attendant would be there during public operating hours. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his appreciation that the general contractor is Devcon, and is happy with how much local work they do. He thanked the developers for wrapping the fence during construction. He wanted the developers to post a rough calendar of events so the public can see the progress. He asked the developers when the City should have the Town Square development plans by. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the meeting up to public comment. Mr. Turco replied that the City should have the plans for the Town Square at least two months before the ground breaking on the project. Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comments. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Colson about making sure the $2 million fee can only be used for the Town Square project. She commented that she is more comfortable with the parking situation. She hoped that staff and Council will look at using union labor for the Town Square. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to approve the development agreement; seconded by Councilmember Colson. Mayor O'Brien Keighran thanked the developer for all the hard work on the project. She commented that she is looking forward to the project. Interim City Attorney Spansail mentioned that the development agreement has to be brought back to Council for adoption at the February 16 meeting. Vice Mayor Ortiz amended his motion. He made a motion to bring back the development agreement at the February 16 Council meeting; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 17 b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DELETING CHAPTER 25.58 OF TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AND CREATING CHAPTER 25.75 TO REGULATE CANNABIS CULTIVATION AND COMMERCIAL CANNABIS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS CDD Gardiner stated that the proposed ordinance deletes Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) and creates a new Chapter 25.75. This new chapter will regulate cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis activity within the city. CDD Gardiner explained that on October 5, 2020, the City Council discussed potential modification of Chapter 25.58 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to allow cannabis retail delivery from businesses located within the city limits. He stated that after further review, staff felt that it would be more efficient and effective to create a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance regulating cannabis, rather than amending Chapter 25.58. He continued that staff believes that this new chapter will make the City's rules and regulations regarding cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis activity more clearly accessible to the public. CDD Gardiner explained that the proposed ordinance focuses on non -storefront cannabis retail delivery, which is defined in the ordinance as "a business or operation, whether for profit or nonprofit, whose premises are closed to the public and which sells cannabis and/or cannabis products exclusively by delivery, for which a state license (Type 9-Non-storefront Retailer) is required under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 and following. This definition does not include any storefront component whereby customers purchase the products at the physical premises of the retail establishment." CDD Gardiner stated the proposed ordinance limits cannabis retail delivery businesses to the Innovation Industrial (I/1) land use district (Rollins Road (RR) and Inner Bayshore (IB) zoning districts), as described above, and prohibits all other commercial cannabis activity in all other land use and zoning districts. He clarified that this ordinance would not allow cannabis business to operate in the North Rollins Road mixed use district nor any other district in the city. CDD Gardiner explained that the proposed ordinance would have operational requirements for non -storefront cannabis retail delivery businesses based in Burlingame as well as those originating from outside Burlingame. He stated that the reason for regulating both is that those delivering into Burlingame are held to standards that are comparable to those based in Burlingame. CDD Gardiner explained that operational requirements for non -store front business operations located in the city include a prohibition on external signage and on -site sales, no public access, prohibition on delivery vehicle signage, prohibition on cannabis in plain view, prohibition on advertising the business address, access and security requirements, drop safes, and odor control systems. IN Councilmember Brownrigg asked how staff came up with the language to prohibit advertisement on the delivery vehicles. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that a lot of language came from the South San Francisco ordinance as well as a blend from other cities. He continued that there are a lot of State laws and regulations for what can and cannot be on delivery vehicles and that a lot of what is in the City ordinance reflects this. Councilmember Beach asked if Police Chief Matteucci had any concerns about the proposed ordinance. Police Chief Matteucci responded that he does not have any concerns at this time. He mentioned he has reached out to other police departments with similar businesses to see if they have had any problems, and he stated that they did not. Councilmember Beach asked what staff thinks about the fee structure. City Manager Goldman responded that the City would have to do a study to figure out the appropriate fees to charge. Councilmember Beach asked if it is possible for the businesses to provide information on their delivery data. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that the City would be getting the sales tax data. He mentioned that the proposed ordinance has language requiring certain data to be recorded and reported to the City. Mayor O'Brien Keighran commented that the ordinance does not specifically put a limit on the number of cannabis business that can operate in the City. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that the ordinance does provide language that the City can limit the number of permits given out per a resolution at a later date. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk -Hassel -Shearer read the title. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the public hearing. An individual asked if the proposed ordinance wants the business to be so hidden, then why would we allow it in our community in the first place. (comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin a�g). An individual commented that they are opposed to the proposed ordinance. (comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlin ame.org). Jenny Keleher, president of the Burlingame Downtown Improvement District (DBID), commented that the DBID board supports the proposed ordinance. She stated that she believes the pros outweigh the cons. (comment submitted via publiccomment(d),burlin ame.org). Stephanie commented that she supports the proposed ordinance because she would rather Burlingame get the potential tax revenue rather than a neighboring City. 19 Ronda commented that she supports the proposed ordinance as having a delivery service in Burlingame would reduce delivery times for cannabis and would also provide more jobs. Julianna commented that she supports the proposed ordinance as she believes having this business in Burlingame would reduce wait times and help the local economy. Lauren commented that she supports the proposed ordinance as many military veterans use cannabis for a variety of reasons. Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. Vice Mayor Ortiz commented that cannabis is already being used and delivered in Burlingame. He continued that this proposed ordinance is just moving the operation of this industry into Burlingame, and thus letting the City benefit from it financially. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to bring the proposed ordinance back for adoption; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. Councilmember Colson commented that she supports the proposed ordinance and that she is excited that it will reduce the carbon footprint of the community. Councilmember Brownrigg mentioned he is open to putting a cap on the number of business that can operate under the proposed ordinance. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated she would be open to putting an initial cap of three or four. Interim City Attorney Spansail stated that the cap could be put into the ordinance or done by resolution. Councilmember Beach commented that she is comfortable with the staff recommendation that the cap be market driven. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked if Council wanted to implement the cap, would they have to re -introduce the ordinance. Interim City Attorney Spansail responded that the cap can be implemented with a resolution that can be passed either with the proposed ordinance or any time after. Vice Mayor Ortiz supported implementing the cap through resolution. CDD Gardiner stated that Redwood City conducted a study that found the market in their city could support up to six business. He commented that one caveat to the cap is to decide if it should be first come, first serve, or via a selection process. He continued that Redwood City implemented a selection process for who could operate. He stated that a first come, first serve process might be a better approach, as a selection process may not be productive in the long run. Vice Mayor Ortiz amended his motion to implement a cap of four businesses by resolution. He asked that the resolution be introduced at the February 16 meeting. 911 Councilmember Brownrigg asked how the City deals with a permit holder that sells its permit to another operator. Interim City Attorney responded that the permits are non -transferable. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced concern about the ability to revoke a permit. Councilmember Colson discussed a few options that the City could take in order to prevent a business from being unresponsive. She stated that one option would be that the applicant could have to demonstrate they have a lease and a business plan. She stated a second option could be that the cap be set at four, and if the City reaches four, staff lets Council know, and Council could amend the resolution to allow for more businesses. She stated a third option could be to pass the ordinance as it is now, and ask staff to come back later with more options of how the process would work. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the City could deny a business a permit if the applicant doesn't meet specified criteria. Interim City Attorney Spansail replied that if a business does not meet objective criteria, then the City could reject the application. He added that he believes only a serious business would go through the process as it is expensive. Councilmember Colson voiced concern that some of the big market players could come in and block the ability of smaller businesses from obtaining a permit. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for adoption, and asked staff to draft a resolution capping potential business permits at four; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS There were no staff reports. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCMENTS There were no committee 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 21 Mayor O'Brien Keighran adjourned meeting at 9:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 22