Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2021.11.01 - StudyCity Council City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online5:30 PMMonday, November 1, 2021 Third Hearing on the Transition to District Elections On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361 which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees On October 18, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 128-2021 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency 2. County Health Orders require that all individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces Pursuant to Resolution Number 128-2021, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the November 1, 2021 City Council Special Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom Webinar listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are comment. Note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda nor on the Consent Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. TO ensure that your comment is received and read to the City Council for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 1, 2021. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record, will be provided to the City Council after the meeting. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/28/2021 November 1, 2021City Council Meeting Agenda - Final 1. CALL TO ORDER - 5:30 p.m. - Online To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 890 4128 4220 Passcode: 988315 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 890 4128 4220 Passcode: 988315 2. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment) Third Public Hearing for the Transition from At -Large Elections to By-District Elections for City Council Seats Staff Report January 4, 2021 Meeting Minutes February 1, 2021 Meeting Minutes May 3, 2021 Meeting Minutes Community of Interest Worksheet Hard Copy Map Mass Mailer Draft Plan A Draft Plan B Draft Plan C Attachments: 3. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees who require special assistance, a disability related modification, or language assistance in order to participate in the meeting should contact Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 1, 2021 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. Any individual who wishes to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 1, 2021 at (650) 558-7203 or at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING Regular City Council Meeting - Monday, November 1, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. VIEW REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING ONLINE www.burlingame.org/video Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/28/2021 November 1, 2021City Council Meeting Agenda - Final Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection via www.burlingame.org or by emailing City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer at mhasselshearer@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/28/2021 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: November 1, 2021 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: November 1, 2021 From: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk – (650) 558-7203 Subject: Third Public Hearing for the Transition from At-Large Elections to By- District Elections for City Council Seats RECCOMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council receive a presentation by Redistricting Partners on the three draft maps that they created for future Council elections. Additionally, the City Council should listen to public input on the draft maps in order to ensure that the City establishes district lines that are informed. BACKGROUND 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”). 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 current elections.” This argument is 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 used is based on the 2010 census. 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. 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. Mr. Shenkman urges each city to consider the use of by-district elections to cure the violation. The letters also make clear that if a city does not declare its intent to do so, a lawsuit under the CVRA will follow. The CVRA, which was passed in 2002, prohibits at-large elections when it can be shown that they impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of their choice or to influence elections in a significant way. The law was passed in part due to a lack of success by plaintiffs utilizing the CVRA’s federal counterpart, the Federal Voting Rights Act, to challenge at-large election systems through federal law. Under the CVRA, plaintiffs need only show that “racially polarized voting” exists in the jurisdiction; they do not need to show any intent of voters or City officials to discriminate against the underrepresented class. They also do not need to prove that changing to district elections would increase representation on the elected body in question. Transition to District Elections November 1, 2021 2 Several cities across California have chosen to fight alleged violations of the CVRA. To date, only Santa Monica has received an order of judgement in its favor. However, that judgement has been granted review by the California Supreme Court and is therefore not binding precedent. Generally, cities that have chosen to fight the alleged violation have been forced to pay out settlements in the millions of dollars before eventually transitioning to by-district election. The Council met in closed session on March 2, 2020, to consider the letter and the various options available to the City. Then on March 16, 2020, the Council adopted Resolution Number 032-2020 reflecting its intent to transition from at-large to by-district council elections. Usually, cities that choose to transition to by-district elections in response to a letter alleging CVRA violations are provided a limited safe-harbor of 90 days from litigation under the CVRA. The statute provides a 90-day period in which a jurisdiction must declare its intent to transition, hold several public hearings, and approve district maps. However, because the City did not have a November 2020 election, and because of the delayed completion of the 2020 Federal Census, Mr. Shenkman and the City agreed to extend the time period by which to transition to by-district elections. On August 19, 2020, staff released a request for proposals (“RFP”) to assist in the districting process. Staff sent the RFP to several firms that are experts in the field of districting. It should be noted that expertise in demography and/or districting is a very niche field. The City received one responsive proposal from Redistricting Partners. Redistricting Partners has worked with several cities and jurisdictions to establish districts including: City of San Mateo, Redwood City, San Jose, and Oakland. 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 council elections. At the January 4, 2021 Council meeting, Redistricting Partners’ CEO, Paul Mitchell, gave a presentation to the City Council on the districting process. He outlined criteria that would need to be considered when drawing the district lines for the City, including that all districts should: • Be relatively equal size – each district would need to be comprised of an equal number of people • Contiguous – districts should not hop/jump • Maintain “communities of interest” • Follow city/county/local government lines • Keep districts compact – appearance/function Mr. Mitchell explained that the City would need to hold at least four public hearings and conduct an expansive public outreach effort to obtain community input on how the district lines should be drawn. Transition to District Elections November 1, 2021 3 On February 1, 2021, the City held its first public hearing on the transition to district elections. Mr. Mitchell gave a thorough presentation outlining the California Voting Rights Act, the history of districting, and the process the City was about to undertake. Additionally, he explained that the City would need to utilize the 2020 census data to draw the district lines. He stated that while typically census data is released in April, because of the pandemic and other issues, data wouldn’t be released until the end of the Summer. On May 3, 2021, the City held its second public hearing on the transition to district elections. At this meeting, Mr. Mitchell gave the same presentation on the process in order to allow members of the public that had missed the first hearing to have their questions answered at the second. Additionally, staff outlined the public outreach that they completed between February and May including: • Partnership with the Library – staff included information on the transition and Community of Interest worksheets in curbside pickup bags • Partnership with Parks and Recreation Department – staff posted Community of Interest flyers in all City parks and included the worksheet in their spring and summer guides • Community organizations and media – staff delivered presentations to local leaders and organizations • Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Fresh Market – staff set up a booth at the Fresh Market to reach out to community members with information about the transition DISCUSSION Since the May 3, 2021 public hearing, staff has been working on educating the public about the transition and gathering public input. Staff’s primary focus has been to get the public to fill out Community of Interest worksheets and draw what they think their district should be. A Community of Interest, as defined by Article 21 Section 2d(4) of the California Constitution, is a group of people that: share common social or economic interests, live in a geographically definable area, and should be included within a single district for purposes of effective and fair representation in future City Council elections. There are some Communities of Interest that are legally recognized “protected classes,” in that they have rights through State or Federal civil rights or voting rights law. Some examples of protected classes in districting include Latinx, Asian, and Black individuals. There are other potential Communities of Interest that can also be considered in districting, such as: senior citizens, people who live in a particular neighborhood, people who share concerns such as parents with young children, bicycle enthusiasts, renters, and homeowners. However, Communities of Interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates. The City’s Community of Interest form was turned into a survey on the City’s website: www.burlingame.org/districtelections for the public’s ease. Additionally, the form was available for download and was handed out at various outreach events. Staff worked with Redistricting Partners to purchase Maptitude, an online mapping tool. This tool allows the public to draw what they think the districts should be. Additionally, it allows the public to see different demographic variables as they draw their maps. To assist the public in using this Transition to District Elections November 1, 2021 4 tool, the City held a Mapping Tool Workshop on July 21. During this workshop, Paul Mitchell answered questions and reviewed how to use Maptitude. Additionally, Redistricting Partners made the City a video outlining how to use the tool. This is on the City’s website below the Maptitude link. With the assistance of Redistricting Partners, staff also created a hard copy map for the public to draw their proposed districts. This hard copy map includes neighborhood block population counts. During the past six months, staff has conducted extensive outreach to educate the public on the transition, gain public input on their Communities of Interest, and get the public to draw what they think the district lines should be. Outreach efforts by staff include: 1. Partnership with Parks and Recreation Department The Parks and Recreation staff included information about the transition and the Community of Interest worksheet in their Spring and Summer Recreation guides. Additionally, in the Fall 2021 Recreation guide, staff included the hard copy map and instructions on how to draw district lines. 2. Community Organizations and Media Staff has continued to deliver presentations, answer questions, and provide information to local leaders, organizations, and community groups. 3. Burlingame Chamber of Commerce’s Fresh Market Since July, staff has set up a booth every other Sunday at the Fresh Market to reach out to community members with information in Chinese, Spanish, and English about the transition. Additionally, staff enlarged the hard copy map and asked members of the public to draw what they thought the district lines should be. 4. Pop-Up Outreach Since July, staff averaged two pop-up events a week in order to gain public feedback. Staff conducted outreach on Burlingame Avenue in front of Peets Coffee, Starbucks, Warby Parker, and across from Apple. Staff also conducted outreach in front of the Main Library and on Broadway. These pop-up outreach events were done for two hours at a time and focused on when individuals would be getting their morning coffee, lunch, or taking their child to the library. 5. Mass Mailer Staff worked with the communications consultant Imprenta to send out a mass mailer to all households in Burlingame ahead of the November 1 hearing. The mailer included information on the meeting, Community of Interest worksheet, drawing a map, and learning more about the transition. A similar mailer is planned for the December 6 public hearing. The three draft map plans that are included in this staff report were drawn utilizing the 2020 census data as well as the Community of Interest forms and citizen maps that community members submitted to the City Clerk. The draft map plans include some demographic information. Staff received these maps on October 21, 2021. Since obtaining the maps, staff has worked with media organizations to publish the draft maps, posted them on social media Transition to District Elections November 1, 2021 5 accounts (Nextdoor, Twitter, and Facebook), and put them in the eNews. Additionally, staff conducted outreach October 25 through October 31 in order to: 1. Let the public know about the November 1 hearing 2. Gain public input about the maps Staff asks that the Council and public provide feedback on the maps to allow for informed district lines. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this public hearing. Exhibits: • January 4, 2021 Meeting Minutes • February 1, 2021 Meeting Minutes • May 3, 2021 Meeting Minutes • Community of Interest Worksheet • Hard Copy map • Mass Mailer • Draft Plan A • Draft Plan B • Draft Plan C 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 th e 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 As ian-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 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 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 CV RA, 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: 1 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. 2 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 full y 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 part y 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” 3 • 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 4 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.burlingame.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 1st - 1st public hearing • May 3 rd – 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. 5 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 publiccomment@burlingame.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@burlingame.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@burlingame.org). 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 publiccomment@burlingame.org). 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@burlingame.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. 6 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 publiccomment@burlingame.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. 7 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 C lerk 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). 8 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.burlingame.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. 1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular Meeting on May 3rd, 2021 5:30 P.M STUDY SESSION a. STUDY SESSION: SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TRANSITION FORM AT-LARGE ELECTIONS TO BY-DISTRICT ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL SEATS City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the City has been conducting extensive public outreach on the “5 Districts 1 Burlingame” campaign. She reviewed the public outreach that the Clerk’s Office has conducted including publishing information in the Parks and Recreation Summer Guide, presentations to several community organizations, and working with the California Apartment Association to provide information to the rental community. She continued that since March 14, the City has had a booth at the Chamber of Commerce’s Sunday Fresh Market. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer explained that the Fresh Market booth was staffed with Councilmembers, various department heads, City Clerk intern Elle Giere, and several Burlingame High School students. She continued that this summer, the City plans to conduct outreach at the Fresh Market as well as at a table at Safeway and at a to-be-determined location in the northern part of Burlingame. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer acknowledged the hard work of her small staff of 1.8 employees, specifically her assistant Andrew Kwoka, and her intern Elle Giere. Paul Mitchell of Redistricting Partners introduced his staff member Sophia Garcia. Ms. Garcia stated that Redistricting Partners uses Burlingame as an example for other jurisdictions of effective public outreach. Ms. Garcia explained that the California Voting Rights Act (“CVRA”) prohibits the use of at- large elections systems if there is racially polarized voting. She 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. Ms. Garcia explained that the CVRA differs from the Federal Voting Rights Act in how it deals with remedies for racially polarized voting. She stated that under federal law, you only need to change to a by-district election system when a majority/minority district can be drawn. She explained that the CVRA expands the federal law and holds that you don’t have to prove that a 2 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. She mentioned that the City is following the strict process. Ms. Garcia explained that the districting process is the initial process of creating the election district boundaries. She stated that the boundaries determine who is eligible to run for office and who can vote in the election (must live within boundaries to qualify for election, and only voters within the district vote for their councilmember.) However, she stated that the boundary lines don’t define how the City decides to govern. Ms. Garcia explained that redistricting occurs every ten years after the Census data is released. She explained that the district lines are adjusted to accommodate for population growth or decline and community data. She stated that the Census data has been delayed this year and that it is expected to be finalized in September. Ms. Garcia discussed gerrymandering. She explained that the term gerrymander originated as the result of former Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry creating a serpentine looking district in the 1800s. The serpentine district was created to favor one party over the other. She 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. She mentioned that a 2001 Senate District in California looked like the original cartoon district and that it led to the formation of the 2010 State Commission. Ms. Garcia 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 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 Downtown/Urban Rural or agriculture Homeowners or renters 3 5. Districts should follow city/county/local government lines 6. Districts should be compact in both appearance and function Ms. Garcia explained that a district is compact if it does not bypass nearby populated areas in favor of more distant populated areas. She showed examples of various cities’ district lines. She noted that in the past, district lines bypassed 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. Ms. Garcia mentioned that you can have a non-compact district, but for the right reasons. She explained that one reason could be that a boundary, such as a railroad track, could force a district to be less compact. Ms. Garcia 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 candidate’s residence as a community of interest Not drawing districts to advantage a political party Ms. Garcia explained that the Census data is used to determine the target population size for each district. She stated that according to the 2010 Census data, Burlingame’s population is 28,806. Based on the 2010 Census data, the 5-District plan would have roughly 5,761 residents per district, with no more than a 576 resident deviation between the largest and smallest district. Ms. Garcia reviewed the City’s demographics. She 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 make-up of a district. She further explained that the City’s total CVAP is 20,275. She 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 Ms. Garcia stated that the City has a webpage with information on the districting process that includes: Information on the CVRA Past presentations January 2020 demand letter Staff reports Hearing schedule Community of Interest form Mapping tool (still to come) Ms. Garcia reviewed the next steps in the process. She stated that the City will hold public 4 hearings to obtain input on communities of interest and to receive feedback on potential districting plans prior to adoption. Feb 1st – First Public Hearing May 3rd – Second Public Hearing TBD – online outreach/mapping tool demonstration TBD – 3 rd public hearing – draft map review TBD – 4 th public hearing TBD – adoption Vice Mayor Ortiz asked when the mapping tool will be ready to use. Mr. Mitchell responded that there have been some complications with getting all the features into the tool, but that they are working on the final tweaks and will let City staff know when it is ready. Mayor O’Brien Keighran asked how the transition from at-large seating to by-district seating of Councilmembers will look over the next two elections. 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 added that in November 2024, the City will complete the transition by placing the remaining two district seats on the ballot. He commented that the Fair Maps Act requires that the proposed district maps be public for seven days prior to the Council voting on them. Mayor O’Brien Keighran opened the item up for public comment. Michael asked for clarification on the outcome of districting and whether it would need to be shown that the district lines created a majority minority district. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that it’s incumbent on the City to follow a process. He stated that the CVRA is not outcome based and that the State does not look at election results in the future. He stressed that it is about making districts that are fair, open, and transparent. Councilmember Brownrigg asked for clarification on how the CVRA is different from the Federal Voting Rights Act (“FVRA”). Mr. Mitchell responded that the FVRA is hard to enforce in a lot of jurisdictions unless you have a majority/minority district. He stated that the FVRA looks back at something that you did. He noted that under the FVRA, a city could face a lawsuit in the future if a minority group that could comprise 50% population of a district was either knowingly or unknowingly not provided the minority/majority district. He continued that the federal law prevents districts being drawn solely based on race, unless there is a section two requirement for the city to create a district that is majority/minority. Sandra Lang asked if there is a method for deciding the hierarchy of criteria when creating districts. Mr. Mitchell responded that there is a ranking for the criteria under the Fair Maps Act and the CVRA. He stated that the City will have to comply with both laws and all the criteria within the laws. A member of the public asked what problem are district elections trying to solve. Mr. Mitchell explained that at one time, at-large elections were thought to be the solution to dilute the voting strength of political bosses or patronage. He stated that, unknowingly, at-large election systems 5 diluted the voting strength of protected classes. He continued that district elections are trying to end the vote dilution that exists with at-large elections that 100 years ago was seen as a strength, but is now a problem. A member of the public asked when the district lines will be drawn. Mr. Mitchell responded that the lines cannot be drawn until the Census data is released. He estimated that the data might not be released until October. He noted that the deadline for agencies that do not have a primary is mid-April. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the City has to have the maps drawn by April per the agreement with Mr. Shenkman. She commented that she hopes to have the process completed before that in order to give potential candidates enough time to decide whether to run and to start gathering campaign funds. David asked why there are only seven days of public comment between when the maps are released and when Council can vote on them. (comment submitted via Zoom chat). Mr. Mitchell responded that this is a new law that is only in effect in California. He stated that it is intended to disallow any elected official to create a redistricting plan the night before a meeting and vote on it the next day. He commented that most non profit organizations pushed for the seven-day window and are generally pleased with it. Brooke commented that her neighborhood is diverse and believes that the process is divisive and expensive for the community. (comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). A member of the public asked how does the process dealt with new neighborhoods being created like North Rollins Road. Mr. Mitchell responded that the City is required to use the most recent Census data when drawing district lines. He commented that unfortunately this doesn’t always capture all the potential changes in a community. A member of the public asked why districts aren’t based on voting population. Mr. Mitchell responded that the Supreme Court has made it clear that the basis for redistricting is whole population. Lilly commented that she fears the districting of Burlingame will lead to political polarization between districts. (comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). Ray Larios asked for clarification on the timeline between getting the Census data and finalizing the district lines. Mr. Mitchell stated that the City’s agreement with Shenkman & Hughes requires that the maps be finalized by April 2022. An incident occurred with Zoom chat which required the City to shut off the chat feature in the Webinar. Michael asked about potential downsides to the districting process and how the consultant ensures that the City has a positive outcome. Mr. Mitchell responded that the main thing the City can do is conduct expansive public outreach including working with the various communities of interest, allow the public an opportunity to draw district maps, and ensure that the process is transparent. 6 Ray Larios asked about the possibility of creating four districts and then electing an at-large mayor. Mr. Mitchell responded that this is up to the agency in question to determine. Tom and Susan Payne commented that they believe the downside to district elections is the development of factional fighting between groups and that Burlingame should be split into five districts from east to west. (comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). A member of the public asked what happens if a Councilmember moves out of the district they are representing. City Clerk Hassel-Shearer stated that the individual would no longer be eligible for their seat. Interim City Attorney Spansail concurred with the City Clerk. A member of the public asked what happens if no one from a district runs. City Clerk Hassel- Shearer responded that from her experience working at the County Election’s Office, when an incumbent doesn’t run for re-election, more people end up running. She noted that when Vice Mayor Ortiz was first elected, there were nine candidates for three seats. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if the City is allowed to have areas of the city that are not districted. He cited the industrial area east of Highway 101 where there are no residents. Mr. Mitchell responded that every area of the city has to be districted. Councilmember Brownrigg commented that the City might have to break one of the guidelines as there are some non-contiguous parts of the city. Mr. Mitchell responded that the law states that you add that non-contiguous part to the nearest area. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he is nervous about having one Councilmember represent a lucrative commercial district. Mr. Mitchell responded that how the commercial areas get apportioned will be determined by Census geography. Councilmember Beach thanked the City Clerk’s Office for all the outreach they have conducted. She asked if the City could extend the seven-day waiting period between the release of the maps and the vote. Mr. Mitchell replied in the affirmative. He commented that in practice, maps are usually released at one meeting and not voted on till the next meeting, and if maps are put on the website and then changed, the original maps are still open to the public. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked Councilmember Brownrigg to clarify his thought on the commercial area being grouped with an existing neighborhood. Councilmember Brownrigg responded that he thinks that a councilmember representing all the hotels might create future conflict. He commented that it makes him uncomfortable for such powerful economic forces to be represented by one councilmember. Councilmember Brownrigg added that he was also in favor of creating four districts and having one at-large mayor. Councilmember Colson commented she is less worried about one councilmember representing a 7 specific industry since if that industry wanted to get something through Council, they would have to have the support of three councilmembers. She continued that the non-voting entities would have access to all of Council in addressing various issues. Mayor O’Brien Keighran noted that there would still be the Economic Development Subcommittee and the Chamber of Commerce for businesses to work with councilmembers. Therefore, she was not concerned about all of the hotels being put into one district. Councilmember Colson voiced her support for having five districts and keeping the rotating mayor. She commented that four districts and an at-large mayor goes against the purpose of districting. Vice Mayor Ortiz voiced support for an at-large mayor as he thought that the mayor could help guide the City on certain issues. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that the Council should discuss term limits for councilmembers. He voiced concern that under district elections, an individual could get elected with fewer votes and therefore could lock up a district for a long time. Mayor O’Brien Keighran disagreed with the idea of an at-large mayor. She stated that an at- large mayor goes against what districting is trying to solve. She voiced support for five districts and a rotating mayor. Councilmember Beach agreed with Mayor O’Brien Keighran and endorsed the idea of five districts and a rotating mayor. Mayor O’Brien Keighran thanked Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Garcia for all the work they have done. She thanked City Clerk Hassel-Shearer and the City Clerk’s Office for all the public outreach they conducted. 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG The pledge of allegiance was led by Councilmember Colson. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O’Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None CITY OF BURLINGAME 5 Districts – One Burlingame COMMUNITY OF INTEREST FORM The City of Burlingame wants to hear from you: The City of Burlingame is taking initial steps for a transition from “at-large” City Council elections to “by-districts” through its “5 Districts – One Burlingame” campaign. The change will allow residents to select councilmembers that live in their community to represent them. A total of five (5) districts are being created. We invite you to submit this community of interest form to help inform the City of Burlingame in creating the five (5) districts in Burlingame. Comment Form on Community of Interest All personal information listed on this form is voluntary and will become a part of the City of Burlingame’s public record. The public is not required to fill out all the questions below, but the more information the City gathers, the better informed the process of drawing Council District boundaries will be. Date: ___________________________________________ Name: _____________________________________________ Email: ___________________________________________ Phone Number : ______________________________________ What is the neighborhood/zipcode where you reside: __________________________________________________________ Name your community (neighborhood, HOA, block club): _______________________________________________________ How do you describe your community? _____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Define the streets/boundaries that define your community? ______________________________________________________ Identity the major cultural/recreational/educational/religious institutions in your community? ____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Does your community have major geographical boundaries/features (freeways, parks , etc)? _____________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ What languages are spoken in your community? ______________________________________________________________ What are the major race/ethnic groups in your community? _____________________________________________________ Are there public services (e.g . bus lines, libraries, public schools, police , fire) that help identify your community? ______________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Environment (coastal, inland, urban/suburban): ________________________________________________________________ Types of homes (single family houses, apartments, condos, mobile homes): __________________________________________ What issues matter to your community? ____________________________________________________________________ Additional Comments: __________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Where can I find out more? The City maintains a webpage on the City’s districting process here: www.burlingame.org/districtelections OR SCAN QR CODE TO FILL OUT COMMUNITY OF INTEREST FORM ONLINE mhasselshearer@burlingame.org YOU MAY MAIL THIS COMMUNITY OF INTEREST CARD TO: Attn: City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 FORM ALSO ACCEPTED THROUGH EMAIL TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME 五個分區，一個伯靈格姆市 伯靈格姆市 (City of Burlingame) 希望獲 得 您 的意 見： 共同權益社區表 (COMMUNITY OF INTEREST FORM) 共同權益社區意見表 伯靈格姆市即將從一般選舉（At-Large）轉向分區選舉（By-District），並以《五個分區，一個伯靈格姆市》（5 Districts – One Burlingame）為主題進行推廣。這項變更將使居民能夠投票選出居住在其社區中的議員來代表他們。 總共將有五（5）個分區。 我們邀請您提交共同權益社區表，幫助本市瞭解更多相關資訊，以規劃設立五（5）個分區。 此表上列出的全部個人資訊均為自願提供，並將成為伯靈格姆市公共記錄的部分內容。公眾無需填寫以下全部問題 ，但是本市收集的資訊越多，就能越精準地掌握繪製議會分區界線的資訊。 日期： _____________________________________ 姓名： _________________________________________ 電子郵箱：_________________________________________ 電話號碼： ______________________________ 您居住的街道/郵政編碼：_______________________________________________________________________ 您所在社區（社區、社區管委會、居民互助委員會）的名稱： _________________________________________ 您如何描述自己的社區？ ________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 您如何定義自己社區的街/邊界? _________________________________________________________________ 識別您社區中的主要文化/娛樂/教育/宗教機構？ ____________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 您的社區是否有主要的地理邊界/特點（高速公路、公園等）？ _________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 您的社區使用哪些語言？_______________________________________________________________________ 您的社區中有哪些主要種族/族裔群體？ ___________________________________________________________ 是否有公共服務設施（例如：公交線路、圖書館、公立學校、警消部門）能幫助識別您的社區？ _________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 環境（沿海、內陸、市區/郊區）： ______________________________________________________________ 房屋類型（獨棟住宅、公寓、共有公寓Condo、移動屋Mobile homes）： _________________________________ 哪些問題對您的社區來說至關重要？ _____________________________________________________________ 附加評論：__________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 哪裡可以查閱更多資訊？ 請造訪本市為城市分區流程建立的網頁 www.burlingame.org/districtelections 或 掃 描 二 維 碼（QR CODE） 線上填寫共同權益社區表 您可以將此共同權益社區卡郵寄至： Attn: City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 mhasselshearer@burlingame.org或透過電子郵件發送至： CIUDAD DE BURLINGAME 5 Distritos - Un Burlingame FORMULARIO DE COMUNIDAD DE INTERÉS La ciudad de Burlingame quiere escucharlo: La ciudad de Burlingame está dando los primeros pasos para la transición de elecciones “generales” a elecciones por “distrito” a través de la campaña “5 distritos, un Burlingame.” El cambio permitirá a los residentes elegir a los concejales que viven en su comunidad para que los representen. Se está creando un total de cinco (5) distritos. Lo invitamos a enviar este formulario de la comunidad de interés para ayudar a informar a la ciudad de Burlingame en la creación de los cinco (5) distritos. Formulario de comentarios sobre comunidad de interés Toda la información personal incluida en este formulario es voluntaria y pasará a formar parte del registro público de la ciudad de Burlingame. El público no está obligado a rellenar todas las preguntas que aparecen a continuación, pero cuanta más información reúna la ciudad, mejor respaldado estará el proceso para dibujar líneas las nuevas lineas de los Distritos.. s Fecha: ___________________________________________ Nombre: __________________________________________ Correo electrónico: ____________________________________ Número de teléfono: _____________________________ ¿Cuál es el vecindario/código postal donde reside? _____________________________________________________________ Nombre de su comunidad (vecindario, comunidad de propietarios, club del vecindario): _______________________________ ¿Cómo describe su comunidad? ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Establezca las calles/límites que definen su comunidad: __________________________________________________________ Identifique las principales instituciones culturales/recreativas/educativas/religiosas de su comunidad: _______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¿Su comunidad tiene límites/características geográficas importantes (autopistas, parques, etc.)? __________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¿Qué idiomas se hablan en su comunidad? ___________________________________________________________________ ¿Cuáles son los principales grupos raciales/étnicos de su comunidad? ______________________________________________ ¿Existen servicios públicos (por ejemplo, líneas de autobús, bibliotecas, escuelas públicas, policía, bomberos) que ayuden a identificar a su comunidad? ______________________________________________________________________________ Medio ambiente (costero, interior, urbano/suburbano): __________________________________________________________ Tipos de viviendas (casas unifamiliares, apartamentos, condominios, casas móviles): ____________________________________ ¿Qué asuntos son importantes para su comunidad? ____________________________________________________________ Comentarios adicionales: _________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ¿Dónde puedo obtener más información? La ciudad tiene una página web sobre el proceso de distribución de la ciudad aquí: www.burlingame.org/districtelections O PUEDE ESCANEAR EL CÓDIGO QR PARA RELLENAR EL FORMULARIO DE COMUNIDAD DE INTERÉS EN LÍNEA mhasselshearer@burlingame.org PUEDE ENVIAR ESTA TARJETA DE COMUNIDAD DE INTERÉS A: Attn: City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 FORMULARIO TAMBIÉN ACEPTADO POR CORREO ELECTRÓNICO A: ONCE COMPLETE1. Email a photo of your completed map tomhasselshearer@burlingame.org2. Mail it to City Hall at Attn: City Clerk501 Primrose RoadBurlingame, CA 940103. Drop it in the water payment boxoutside of City Hall- Create a single city council districtor create a ǏɐǶǶ˛ɨƵƮǞȺɈȲǞƧɈȯǶƊȁ.- New districts should have apopulation of around 5,800.- The largest district should be noǿȌȲƵɈǘƊȁ׆׀׀ȯƵȌȯǶƵǐȲƵƊɈƵȲ thanthe smallest district.THE RULESABOUT THE BLOCKSEach of these blocks is drawn within Burlingame’s existing ȁƵǞǐǘƦȌȲǘȌȌƮȺةƊȺƮƵ˛ȁƵƮǞȁɈǘƵGeneral Plan. The numbers are estimated population based on the latest American Community Survey. ÀǘƵ˛ȁƊǶƧƵȁȺɐȺƮƊɈƊɈǘƊɈɩǞǶǶƦƵused to create the district lines will be provided by the state in September or October 2021. We have rounded each number.DISTRICT 1DISTRICT 2DISTRICT 3DISTRICT 4DISTRICT 5àȲǞɈƵǞȁɈǘƵȯȌȯɐǶƊɈǞȌȁƵȺɈǞǿƊɈƵȺǏȌȲƵƊƧǘȌǏɯȌɐȲƮȲƊɩȁƮǞȺɈȲǞƧɈȺخ~5,800 Target Population Per DistrictCITY OF BURLINGAMEPlease use this map as a tool for drawing your preferred city council district lines or community. THE CITY OF BURLINGAME IS HOSTING A THIRD HEARING TO DECIDE CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS Residents are encouraged to attend virtual meetings and submit Communities of Interest Forms and maps. - Attend virtual public hearings - Fill out a Communities of Interest Form - Draw a map on our website - Submit your comments to publiccomment@burlingame.org Learn more at www.burlingame.org/districtelections City of Burlingame, City Clerk 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 NOTICE: HELP DRAW DISTRICT LINES No es demasiado tarde para ayudar a trazar las líneas de distrito para decidir las elecciones de los futuros miembros del Concejo Municipal de la ciudad de Burlingame. Estas líneas de distrito estarán en su lugar durante la próxima década. La Ciudad está en medio de la transición a elecciones distritales, y se necesita la aportación de la comunidad. Descubra como unirse a reuniones y entregar comentarios públicos sobre el proceso de la redistribución de distritos visitando: www.burlingame.org/districtelections. 邀請您協助劃分本市選區界線，此變更將影響 未來伯靈格姆市的市議員選舉。 新劃分出的選 區界線將在未來十年內保持不變。 本市正在轉向分區選舉（district elections） 制度，希望您能對此提出意見與反饋。 欲了 解如何參與相關會議並針對劃分選區的流程提 交公眾意見，請造訪www.burlingame.org/ districtelections。 CITY OF BURLINGAME NEXT PUBLIC HEARING Meeting information available at: www.burlingame.org/districtelections VIRTUAL ON ZOOM HOW TO GET INVOLVED QUESTIONS? FILL OUT A COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST FORM: It’s not too late to help draw district lines to decide elections for future City of Burlingame Councilmembers. Once adopted, the district lines will remain in place for the next decade. The City of Burlingame is currently in the middle of a transition from “at-large” City Council elections to “by-district” elections through its “5 Districts – One Burlingame” initiative. The change will allow residents to select Councilmembers who live in their community to represent them. Five districts are being created. The City will hold virtual public hearings on November 1 and December 6 to review draft district lines and hear from the community. All are welcome to attend and participate. Additionally, you can fill out a Communities of Interest Form and draw what you think the district lines should be by visiting www.burlingame.org/districtelections. The more input we get from the community, the better informed the draft district lines will be. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING VIRTUAL HEARINGS: Individuals will be able to make comments live during the meeting, but if you can’t attend, you can email your comments ahead of time to publiccomment@burlingame.org and they will be read during the meeting. Contact City Clerk Meaghan Hassel-Shearer Email: mhasselshearer@burlingame.org | Phone: 650.558.7203 Submit Communities of Interest Forms Here: Scan QR Code here Learn How to Draw and Submit a Map Here: Scan QR Code here DATE & TIME VIRTUAL MEETING ACCESS INFORMATION Monday, November 1, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. To Access the Meeting by Computer: Go to: www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 890 4128 4220 | Passcode: 988315 To Access the Meeting by Phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 890 4128 4220 | Passcode: 988315 City of BurlingameDraft Plan A City of Burlingame Draft Plan A A B C D E Population 6,082 6,510 6,278 6,464 6,082 Deviation -201 227 -5 181 -201 Deviation %-3.2%3.6%-0.1%2.9%-3.2% Other 3,629 3,764 4,180 2,952 3,754 Other %59.7%57.8%66.6%45.7%61.7% Latino 1,016 1,290 626 530 807 Latino %16.7%19.8%10.0%8.2%13.3% Asian 1,363 1,391 1,429 2,950 1,443 Asian %22.4%21.4%22.8%45.6%23.7% Black 74 65 43 32 78 Black %1.2%1.0%0.7%0.5%1.3% 2020 Census A B C D E Total CVAP 4,012 4,056 3,894 3,724 3,818 Other CVAP 2,602 2,891 2,768 1,930 2,539 Other CVAP %64.9%71.3%71.1%51.8%66.5% Latino CVAP 701 525 273 306 428 Latino CVAP %17.5%12.9%7.0%8.2%11.2% Asian CVAP 576 630 824 1,407 823 Asian CVAP %14.4%15.5%21.2%37.8%21.6% Black CVAP 133 10 29 80 28 Black CVAP %3.3%0.2%0.7%2.1%0.7% Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) City of Burlingame Draft Plan A District A Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,082 -201 -3.2%3,629 59.7%1,016 16.7%1,363 22.4%74 1.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,012 2,602 64.9%701 17.5%576 14.4%133 3.3% City of Burlingame Draft Plan A District B Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,510 227 3.6%3,764 57.8%1,290 19.8%1,391 21.4%65 1.0% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,056 2,891 71.3%525 12.9%630 15.5%10 0.2% City of Burlingame Draft Plan A District C Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,278 -5 -0.1%4,180 66.6%626 10.0%1,429 22.8%43 0.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,894 2,768 71.1%273 7.0%824 21.2%29 0.7% City of Burlingame Draft Plan A District D Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,464 181 2.9%2,952 45.7%530 8.2%2,950 45.6%32 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,724 1,930 51.8%306 8.2%1,407 37.8%80 2.1% City of Burlingame Draft Plan A District E Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,082 -201 -3.2%3,754 61.7%807 13.3%1,443 23.7%78 1.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,818 2,539 66.5%428 11.2%823 21.6%28 0.7% City of BurlingameDraft Plan B City of Burlingame Draft Plan B A B C D E Population 6,333 6,143 6,151 6,430 6,359 Deviation 50 -140 -132 147 76 Deviation %0.8%-2.2%-2.1%2.3%1.2% Other 3,703 3,759 3,668 4,224 2,925 Other %58.5%61.2%59.6%65.7%46.0% Latino 1,205 880 1,023 636 525 Latino %19.0%14.3%16.6%9.9%8.3% Asian 1,366 1,425 1,386 1,521 2,878 Asian %21.6%23.2%22.5%23.7%45.3% Black 59 79 74 49 31 Black %0.9%1.3%1.2%0.8%0.5% 2020 Census A B C D E Total CVAP 4,056 3,677 4,065 4,030 3,676 Other CVAP 2,890 2,429 2,639 2,878 1,894 Other CVAP %71.3%66.1%64.9%71.4%51.5% Latino CVAP 525 415 705 279 309 Latino CVAP %12.9%11.3%17.4%6.9%8.4% Asian CVAP 630 802 587 848 1,393 Asian CVAP %15.5%21.8%14.5%21.0%37.9% Black CVAP 10 31 133 25 80 Black CVAP %0.2%0.8%3.3%0.6%2.2% Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) City of Burlingame Draft Plan B District A Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,333 50 0.8%3,703 58.5%1,205 19.0%1,366 21.6%59 0.9% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,056 2,890 71.3%525 12.9%630 15.5%10 0.2% City of Burlingame Draft Plan B District B Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,143 -140 -2.2%3,759 61.2%880 14.3%1,425 23.2%79 1.3% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,677 2,429 66.1%415 11.3%802 21.8%31 0.8% City of Burlingame Draft Plan B District C Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,151 -132 -2.1%3,668 59.6%1,023 16.6%1,386 22.5%74 1.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,065 2,639 64.9%705 17.4%587 14.5%133 3.3% City of Burlingame Draft Plan B District D Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,430 147 2.3%4,224 65.7%636 9.9%1,521 23.7%49 0.8% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,030 2,878 71.4%279 6.9%848 21.0%25 0.6% City of Burlingame Draft Plan B District E Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,359 76 1.2%2,925 46.0%525 8.3%2,878 45.3%31 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,676 1,894 51.5%309 8.4%1,393 37.9%80 2.2% City of BurlingameDraft Plan C City of Burlingame Draft Plan C A B C D E Population 6,178 6,218 6,278 6,464 6,278 Deviation -105 -65 -5 181 -5 Deviation %-1.7%-1.0%-0.1%2.9%-0.1% Other 3,643 3,545 4,180 2,952 3,959 Other %59.0%57.0%66.6%45.7%63.1% Latino 1,078 1,229 626 530 806 Latino %17.4%19.8%10.0%8.2%12.8% Asian 1,382 1,374 1,429 2,950 1,441 Asian %22.4%22.1%22.8%45.6%23.0% Black 75 70 43 32 72 Black %1.2%1.1%0.7%0.5%1.1% 2020 Census A B C D E Total CVAP 4,247 3,786 3,894 3,724 3,852 Other CVAP 2,814 2,585 2,768 1,930 2,633 Other CVAP %66.3%68.3%71.1%51.8%68.4% Latino CVAP 746 483 273 306 425 Latino CVAP %17.6%12.7%7.0%8.2%11.0% Asian CVAP 554 701 824 1,407 775 Asian CVAP %13.0%18.5%21.2%37.8%20.1% Black CVAP 133 18 29 80 20 Black CVAP %3.1%0.5%0.7%2.1%0.5% Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) City of Burlingame Draft Plan C District A Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,178 -105 -1.7%3,643 59.0%1,078 17.4%1,382 22.4%75 1.2% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,247 2,814 66.3%746 17.6%554 13.0%133 3.1% City of Burlingame Draft Plan C District B Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,218 -65 -1.0%3,545 57.0%1,229 19.8%1,374 22.1%70 1.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,786 2,585 68.3%483 12.7%701 18.5%18 0.5% City of Burlingame Draft Plan C District C Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,278 -5 -0.1%4,180 66.6%626 10.0%1,429 22.8%43 0.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,894 2,768 71.1%273 7.0%824 21.2%29 0.7% City of Burlingame Draft Plan C District D Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,464 181 2.9%2,952 45.7%530 8.2%2,950 45.6%32 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,724 1,930 51.8%306 8.2%1,407 37.8%80 2.1% City of Burlingame Draft Plan C District E Other %Latino %Asian %Black % 2020 Census Other %Latino %Asian %Black % Citizen Voting Age Population Population Deviation Deviation %Other Other %Latino Latino %Asian Asian %Black Black % 6,278 -5 -0.1%3,959 63.1%806 12.8%1,441 23.0%72 1.1% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP %Latino CVAP Latino CVAP %Asian CVAP Asian CVAP %Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,852 2,633 68.4%425 11.0%775 20.1%20 0.5%