Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 2021.12.06CITY O BURLINGAME o� nnrco �urc b BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Approved Minutes Regular City Council Meeting on December 6th, 2021 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 Vice Mayor Ortiz. 3. ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O'Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION City Attorney Guina reported that direction was given at the closed session, but no reportable action was taken. 5. UPCOMING EVENTS Mayor O'Brien Keighran reviewed upcoming events in the city. 6. PRESENTATIONS a. PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY PRESENTATION Peninsula Humane Society President Anthony Tansimore gave an update on the work of the Peninsula Humane Society ("PHS"). He explained that PHS was founded in 1950 by concerned citizens. PHS provides care to the animals in the community and is not affiliated with nor funded by any other humane societies. He stated that PHS is funded by the local community. Mr. Tansimore reviewed the services that PHS provides including: • Animal rescue • Sheltering services • Veterinary services • Disaster preparedness • Issuing of dog/cat licenses and collection of license fees Mr. Tansimore also reviewed the privately funded services that PHS assists with including: • Cruelty Investigations — investigate hundreds of cases and when necessary present cases to the District Attorney's Office for prosecution • Adoptions — place thousands of animals each year into loving homes • Spay/Neuter Clinic — provide affordable surgeries for owned pets and a free mobile spay/neuter clinic in targeted areas • Wildlife Care Center — treats sick, injured or orphaned wild animals form San Francisco to northern Santa Clara County • Volunteer Program - more than 1,200 active volunteers who work in almost every department • Humane Education — includes camps for kids, classroom presentations and career -related programs for high school students along with adult/family learning opportunities. • Dog training classes and free animal behavior helpline for the public to help keep pets in their home • TAILS — Transitioning Animals into Loving Homes — a partnership with the San Mateo Sheriff's Department working with minimum security inmates. Mayor O'Brien Keighran discussed taking her dog to Peninsula Humane Society for training. She thanked Mr. Tansimore for his hard work. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked Mayor O'Brien Keighran for putting this on the agenda. He discussed the volunteer work that his wife and son do at PHS and how much cheer PHS brings to the community. Councilmember Beach echoed the sentiments of her colleagues. She commented that PHS offers a great set of education programs and can't recommend them enough. Councilmember Colson thanked the PHS and Mr. Tanismore for all the work they do. She added that her family has adopted a pet from PHS. b. NORTH ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE CDD Gardiner explained that the City updated its General Plan in 2019. He stated that the Rollins Road Mixed Use area was a chance to create a new neighborhood in Burlingame. He introduced John Moreland and Andrew Levins from KTGY, the consultants retained to assist with the Specific Plan, and Linda Gates, Dana Falk, and Casey Case from Gates + Associates, the landscape architects for the project. Ms. Gates thanked the City Council for providing the team with the opportunity to reimagine North Rollins Road by having the foresight to designate it a live/work area. She reviewed the community outreach efforts 2 that were undertaken. She noted the discussions at the different meetings and reviewed the feedback that the team received at each meeting including: Community Advisory Committee • September 2020 and January 2021 o Enhance underutilized area and maintain industrial feel o Provide flexibility and more trees o Walkability, access, and wayfinding o Link to transit o Public art o Celebrate linear corridor o Wider sidewalks Technical Advisory Committee • September 2020 and January 2021 o Outdoor multi -use spaces o Connectivity o Connection to transit o Keep industrial feel o Walkability o Awareness of what's there o Wider sidewalks protected with street trees Planning Commission • September 2020 and February 2021 o Promote a mix of uses o Connected o Place o Incremental evolution o Strong spine along Rollins Road Community Meeting • October 2020 and February 2021 o Maintain industrial feel o Showcase local businesses o Art emphasis o Sustainability o Flexible open spaces o Connected open spaces Ms. Gates stated that there were some consistent requests from all the groups, which led to the principles of the project. 3 Mr. Moreland reviewed the project principles: • Create a new mixed -use neighborhood that retains and blends existing uses with new uses and developments • Nurture community connection via a framework of open space that provides a rich variety of recreational experiences • Create a new framework of open spaces that is accessible to all and multi -functional so they serve many uses • Encourage and promote environmentally and economically sustainable development and infrastructure • Celebrate North Rollins' industrial character and unique history • Create opportunity to promote local businesses and community organizations existing in and surrounding the North Rollins area • Encourage creative opportunities for art as a distinguishing characteristic of the neighborhood • Ensure a smooth transition between North Rollins Road and South Rollins Road Mr. Moreland explained that the concepts for the North Rollins Road Specific Plan were based on five key variables: 1. Land Use: Refinement of North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone 2. Focus Area: Areas within the project area that relate to the surrounding context 3. North Rollins and Adrian Road: Main backbone multi -modal travel ways 4. Open Space: The "public" realm of connections and recreational facilities 5. Utility Easement: Power lines and utility towers on private property. Mr. Moreland reviewed the project's design guidelines: • Urban Design: Open space, streetscape, landscape, and amenities • Site and Building: Eclectic mix of residential, live/work, commercial, and light industrial • Focus Areas: Tailored urban design approaches for different plan areas • Sustainability: Project -specific design solutions Mr. Moreland discussed lanes of traffic, bike lanes, and pedestrian traffic on Rollins Road and Adrian Road. He explained that the sentiment the team kept hearing throughout the process was that the pedestrian, bike, and car lanes should all be separate. He noted that the team discussed the project with the City of Millbrae to ensure that it was compatible. He added that Adrian Road would ultimately see less bike traffic. Ms. Gates discussed creating open spaces in the North Rollins Road Plan. She stressed the importance of walkability and creating parks. Ms. Gates reviewed the next steps: • January 2022 — Draft Specific Plan • March 2022 — Final Draft Specific Plan • April 2022 — Specific Plan Adoption 4 Vice Mayor Ortiz thanked the group for the presentation. He discussed the importance of identifying potential open spaces before they become unavailable. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked everyone for the update. He noted the difficulty of transitioning a section of the city from one usage to another and asked if the consultants reviewed successful examples of this transition. Mr. Moreland explained that KTGY has experience designing residential and mixed -use buildings across the country. He added that the consultants had reviewed projects in Santa Barbara that transitioned areas from industrial to resort/destination locations. He noted that they also looked at the Arts District in Los Angeles. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he wasn't worried about the transition from industrial to residential, but about what makes a neighborhood. He asked if it was important to install retail in the new neighborhood. Mr. Moreland responded that retail should be included, but that retail has undergone a change, especially throughout the pandemic. He noted that people want an experience that includes a food component and grocery component. He commented that there will be a commercial element to the new district, as well as additional design criteria and provisions that will hopefully create a sense of place. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if all the parks, aside from the utility easement, are privately developed. Ms. Gates responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg asked how the City can make sure the parks will be open to the public. Ms. Gates explained that one park under development is privately funded but will be open to the public, and another privately developed park will be dedicated to the City for use. She noted that the second model, of privately funded and then dedicated to the City (which the City will program, maintain, and operate) is preferred. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced appreciation for the second model. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there had been any thought on building a pedestrian bridge over the train tracks. Mr. Mowery responded that the team has looked into this and preliminary concepts are on the website. CDD Gardiner added that staff has begun discussions with the school district about school routes and how this might impact the need to create a bridge or tunnel to cross the train tracks. Councilmember Brownrigg asked if there was a County building in that area. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he thought utilizing that property as a library or something similar in nature would help pull the neighborhood together. He thanked the subcommittee and everyone involved for all their hard work on this plan. Councilmember Beach thanked everyone for their work. She asked how are the commissions, BPAC, and community groups are being engaged in the process. CDD Gardiner responded the Community Advisory Committee has some members that are involved with the commissions that help bridge the gap. However, he 5 noted that meetings with the various commissions haven't been built into the process. He explained that the Planning Commission has been the only commission that the team has formally met with. Councilmember Beach suggested that staff engage with the other relevant commissions on this project. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Colson discussed the public input that the project obtained at the community meetings. She asked how the new neighborhood would be connected to Broadway and Millbrae Avenue in order not to feel like an island. Ms. Gates stressed the importance of connecting this neighborhood with Millbrae and with Broadway. She noted that staff has been working closely with Millbrae. Councilmember Colson suggested creating a second farmers market on North Rollins Road to attract community members to that side of town. She added that it has been fun to work on this project and see it come to fruition. Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with her colleagues. She noted that this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to develop a new community. Councilmember Colson stated that the project highlights the City Council's readiness to create housing. She thanked staff for their work on the project. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened public comment. Manito Velasco voiced concern about the preferred alternative road plan for Rollins Road. (comment submitted via publiccommentgburlin ag me.org). Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed public comment. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments. 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed from the Consent Calendar. Vice -Mayor Ortiz made a motion to adopt the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 15, 2021 REGULAR MEETING 2 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer requested Council approve the City Council Meeting Minutes for the November 15t' Regular Meeting. b. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 25 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, AND REPEALING TITLE 21 (HISTORIC PRESERVATION) AND TITLE 22 (SIGNS) OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE; CEQA DETERMINATION: NO FURTHER CEQA ANALYSIS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15168,15162,15183) Community Development Director Gardiner requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2000. c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN TO INCREASE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) FOR OFFICE AND RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON PROPERTIES FRONTING OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY IN THE BAYFRONT AREA AND TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPECIFICITY TO SEA LEVEL RISE GOALS AND POLICIES (CEQA DETERMINATION: NO FURTHER CEQA ANALYSIS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15168, 15162) Community Development Director Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 145-2021. d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AND FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP (PM 20-05), LOT MERGER AND RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS P AND Q, BLOCK 6, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY NO.2 SUBDIVISION AT 601 CALIFORNIA DRIVE; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3) Public Works Director Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 146-2021. e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE FURNISHINGS FOR THE NEW COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $428,543.85 Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 147-2021. f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $300,000 WITH TRUE NORTH COMPLIANCE SERVICES, INC. TO PROVIDE BUILDING PERMIT AND INSPECTION SERVICES Community Development Director Gardiner requested Council adopt Resolution Number 148-2021. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND LEVYING 2022 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS ON HOTEL BUSINESSES WITHIN THE DISTRICT Finance Director Yu -Scott explained that the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District ("TBID") was formed in 2001 to revitalize the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau ("SMCCVB"). She stated that because Burlingame had the most hotel rooms and the greatest interest in seeing the TBID formed, the City agreed to act as "Lead Agency." Board slots were allocated based upon the number of hotel rooms in the various cities, with Burlingame allotted four, the most of any city. Since the TBID's formation, the Burlingame City Council has conducted the annual reauthorization hearing for the TBID, and the City has overseen the various cities' tourism fee assessment payments. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that the City of Palo Alto withdrew from the TBID in January 2021. She noted that the TBID is now comprised of 13 cities along with unincorporated San Mateo County. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that the assessments for the TBID in 2022 are approximately $1.5 million. Finance Director Yu -Scott explained that after the last meeting, staff made a few minor corrections to the proposed resolution's exhibit. Finance Director Yu -Scott asked the City Clerk if she had received any protests. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer replied in the negative. Finance Director Yu -Scott stated that because no protests were received, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed resolution and approve the annual assessments. SMCSVCVB President John Hutar stated that since July, hotels in San Mateo County have been running at an occupancy rate of approximately 58% to 60%. He noted that they are optimistic about recovery and that they have spent a lot of energy reworking marketing material. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 149-2021; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. b. FOURTH PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TRANSITION FROM AT -LARGE ELECTIONS TO BY -DISTRICT ELECTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL SEATS City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that this was the fourth hearing regarding the City's transition to district elections for City Council seats. She stated that usually at these hearings, she outlines the outreach efforts that the City Clerk's Office has conducted to educate the public on the transition and obtain public input. 0 However, she explained that at this meeting, she would be reviewing concerns that arose at the November 1 st hearing including: 1. How public input was utilized 2. Census blocks 3. Burlingame Hills 4. Communities of interest Utilization of Public Input City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that at the November 1 st hearing, staff heard that the public was concerned about how the submitted community of interest forms and publicly drawn maps were utilized in the process. She explained that while other jurisdictions, like the County, created a commission to handle the districting process, staff felt it was important to allow all members of the public to participate in the process. Therefore, the City Clerk's Office conducted eight months of public outreach in order to get the public involved in determining how best to draw the district lines. The information that staff collected was then turned over to Redistricting Partners, the City's consultant, to utilize when drawing the maps. She explained that Redistricting Partners looked for trends in the public feedback regarding how people were identifying neighborhoods and drawing their maps. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that Redistricting Partners was not tasked with selecting a publicly drawn map to present to Council. Instead, Redistricting Partners utilized the public input, along with the Census data, to draw the district lines. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that when drawing district maps, there are five State requirements: 1. Equal population size 2. Compact 3. Contiguous 4. Follow governmental boundaries 5. Communities of interest Census Blocks City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that at the November 1 st hearing, the public raised concern about a notch in Draft Map B around Adeline Road. She stated that other members asked if the City could keep all the multi -family units on both sides of El Camino Real in the same district instead of using El Camino Real as a dividing line. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer showed a picture of the City's Census Block Map for 2020. She discussed that when the consultants draw district lines, they have to follow census blocks. This is because the census block is the smallest population unit. Therefore, if the consultant was to split up a census block, there would be no way to know what the population was on each side of the split. Accordingly, because El Camino Real was used as a border for all the census blocks, the consultant isn't able to keep the multi -family units together. Instead, the entire census block that includes the multi -family units would need to be brought into that district. 9 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer mentioned the difficulty when moving census blocks to maintain relatively equal population sizes among the districts. Burlingame Hills City Clerk Hassel -Shearer showed the Burlingame General Plan map that outlines the different historical neighborhoods in Burlingame. She explained that she has heard from several Burlingame Hills residents that they are unhappy that their neighborhood isn't fully contained within one district. She noted that there are two issues that led to the Burlingame Hills not being in one district: 1. There is a section of unincorporated San Mateo County that lies between the two sections of Burlingame Hills that are within the City's boundaries. The portion of Burlingame Hills that is unincorporated cannot be taken into consideration when districting because it is not a part of Burlingame. 2. Therefore, in order to keep the Burlingame Hills together, the consultants would need to split up the Mills Estate, Ray Park, and Easton Addition neighborhoods. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that while the goal is to keep neighborhoods whole, it is sometimes impossible. Therefore, although the consultants worked hard to minimize the split of any neighborhoods, it was impossible to not split up the Burlingame Hills. Communities of Interest City Clerk Hassel -Shearer noted that at the November 1 st hearing, the public and Council spent a lot of time discussing what is considered a community of interest. She explained that the California Constitution defines a community of interest as: "a contiguous population that shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." She stated that Redistricting Partners narrowed down this definition by reviewing the three prongs of a community of interest: 1. What is the community of interest? 2. What is the footprint of that community of interest? 3. What is the relationship to City governance? City Clerk Hassel -Shearer utilized Redistricting Partners' three -pronged approach with the example of a neighborhood having a lot of car break-ins: 1. The community of interest is in creating safety in a neighborhood 2. The footprint is the neighborhood where the car break-ins are occurring 3. The relationship to City governance is direct because the City could increase police presence in the neighborhood City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that an important part of districting is keeping communities of interest together. She explained that this is done in order to give these communities of interest a voice in governance. 10 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that at the November 1 st hearing, the public asked that the districts be formed by creating east -west bands. She explained that the public asserted that this would create diverse socio-economic districts. However, she stated that this isn't the assignment when it comes to districting. Instead, districting is about putting like with like in order to give those communities an effective voice in governance. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer then discussed different communities of interest she had heard about during her eight months of outreach including: • Individuals concerned about the effects of the Peninsula Interchange project on their neighborhoods • Sea level rise • Development at Mills -Peninsula • Wildfire • Bike routes • Rental community and affordable housing • Neighborhood aesthetics City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that there were several other communities of interest in the city. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer noted that at the November 1 st public hearing, it was suggested that the district lines take into consideration the elementary school attendance lines (excluding Hoover). She explained that this was problematic for several reasons including: 1. The school you send your child to is a community of interest when it comes to school district governance; it does not directly relate to City governance 2. Attendance lines include unincorporated Burlingame 3. Attendance lines are not within the control of the City and can be changed City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that as the Council reviews the four draft maps, they need to consider which one does the best at keeping communities of interest together while adhering to the other rules of districting. Councilmember Brownrigg thanked the City Clerk for managing a complex project. He noted that he wasn't a fan of the process but thought staff made it as logical as possible. He stated that when the City Clerk had discussed communities of interest, they were all policy questions. He explained that the City was transitioning to district elections due to allegations that the City's current election system violated the California Voting Rights Act because it diluted the ability of Asians to elect candidates of their choice. He asked how racial demographics played into the districting process. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that under the Federal Voting Rights Act, the Latinx, Asian, and Black populations are communities of interest. However, she pointed out that under the Supreme Court case Shaw, a district can't be drawn solely based on race. She noted that the district encompassing Ray Park and Mills Estate has the largest concentrated Asian population (above 40% Asian). Councilmember Beach asked about the Latinx population in the city. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that there is no concentrated Latinx area. She noted that in all of the districts, the Latinx population is approximately 10% to 15%. 11 Councilmember Beach asked if staff had an overlay of the rental community with the four draft maps. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that she spent a lot of time talking to different community organizations about the rental community. She noted that in utilizing the City's zoning map and in discussions with Housing for All Burlingame members, it was clear that a large concentration of renters could be found in the Downtown Burlingame neighborhood. She added that outside of this neighborhood, renters are fairly spread out. Redistricting Partners CEO Paul Mitchell reviewed the four draft maps. He noted that the maps are based on community input. He explained that input from the community drives the process, with the City providing multiple ways for the public to engage. He added that the community input has to be squared with the requirements of districting. Mr. Mitchell stated that after the November 1 st hearing, Redistricting Partners drew a fourth map based on public feedback. He then reviewed the four maps and how they keep neighborhoods together. Draft Map A • Keeps Downtown Burlingame and Burlingame Park whole • Neighborhoods kept together: Bayfront, Burlingame Gardens, Burlingables, Lyon Hoag, Mills Estate, Burlingame Plaza, and Ray Park • Keeps Burlingame Village and Burlingame Grove together. Splits Burlingame Terrace along Palm Drive • Total deviation is 6.8% Draft Map B • Keeps Lyon Hoag, Burlingables, and Burlingame Gardens together • Keeps Downtown Burlingame and Burlingame Park together. Splits Burlingame Terrace along Palm Drive • Keeps Mills Estate, Burlingame Hills, and Burlingame Plaza together • Total deviation is 4.5% Draft Map C • Keeps Downtown Burlingame and the eastern portions of Burlingame Park together • Keeps Easton Addition together and the eastern portion of Burlingame Hills together • Keeps Mills Estate, Burlingame Plaza, and Ray Park together. Keeps the western portion of Burlingame Hills together • Keeps the western portion of Burlingame Park, Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove together. Splits Burlingame Village along Oxford Road to Dufferin Avenue. • Total deviation is 4.6% Draft Map D • Utilizes the split in the Districts C and D from Draft Maps A and C by keeping Easton Addition together with the eastern portion of Burlingame Hills 12 • Keeps Mills Estate, Burlingame Plaza, and Ray Park together. Keeps the western portion of Burlingame Hills together • Has a District A similar to those in Draft Maps A and B by keeping Downtown Burlingame and Burlingame Park together but splits Burlingame Terrace along Palm Drive • Lyon Hoag remains whole in District B with Burlingables and Burlingame Gardens • Total deviation is 5.1 % City Manager Goldman noted that the reason the City is transitioning to district elections is because the law firm, Shenkman and Hughes, sent the City a letter alleging violations of the California Voting Rights Act. She added that the City has been working hard to make sure things are done the right way. She stated that the City's goal is to adopt district lines in early 2022, to allow individuals to determine if they will run for office. Mayor O'Brien Keighran thanked the City Clerk and her staff for their work on this item. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the public hearing. Sandra Lang thanked the City Clerk and Paul Mitchell for their work on this item. She asked if the deviation is an internal measurement within each map. Mr. Mitchell stated that deviation refers to two things in districting. The first is the deviation of any district from the ideal district size (utilizing population). The second is the deviation of the entire map. The second deviation reviews the largest district deviation from the smallest district deviation. Lily Chu stated that she doesn't agree with Shenkman's allegations. She asked if there had ever been an Asian American Councilmember. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that to her knowledge she didn't think there had been an Asian American Councilmember. City Manager Goldman concurred. Mark Meyerson stated that he believed all four draft maps were a good faith effort to move to district elections. He asked about how the Anson apartments and other complexes that came online after the Census data factored into the draft maps. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that he was right that because it wasn't online at the time of the 2020 Census, it couldn't be included in the districting. However, she noted that there would be a lot of units coming online in the next ten years and would be considered when the city is redistricted in 2030. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer discussed the growth that the city would be seeing in different areas. She noted that these concerns were brought to Redistricting Partners at the beginning of the process. She explained that Mr. Mitchell gave examples of other cities where growth had been predicted in certain areas, and there ended up being more of an equal growth throughout the city. Mr. Mitchell concurred with City Clerk Hassel -Shearer. He reviewed examples of a few cities including Davis and Sacramento and how it had been predicted that housing growth would only occur in certain areas. 13 Laura Hinz thanked the City Clerk and Mr. Mitchell for their presentation and for taking into consideration the comments at the last meeting. She noted that she supported Draft Map D. Jennifer Pfaff thanked the City Clerk for taking the time to answer her questions. She added that given the restrictions, she thought that Draft Map D was the best option for the city. She noted that she appreciated that the Lyon Hoag district included California Drive. Steve Epstein explained that he spent hours using the online mapping tool and submitted a plan that kept the Burlingame Hills together. He voiced disappointment that the Burlingame Hills weren't kept together in any of the draft maps. He reviewed how he was able to do this and voiced concern about the online mapping tool's deviations. Mr. Mitchell stated that he would need to talk with his staff to review the online map submissions. He noted that he hasn't seen an error in the online tool but would look into it. He added that when he draws the submitted maps into his platform, the deviations are coming out correct. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer noted that a majority of the maps that were submitted were hand -drawn maps. She explained that the goal of publicly drawn maps was to see how people identify their neighborhoods. Todd Robinette urged the Council to adopt Draft Map B. Tom Paine urged the Council to reject all four maps and instead work on a map that creates districts that are east -west bands. (comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin a�g). Jan Cooke urged the Council to adopt Draft Map B. (comment submitted via publiccomment&burlin ag me.org). Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn't think the transition was great for the City. He noted that he didn't like the fact that because of districting, there would be one person that thought they spoke for a neighborhood instead of the whole Council. He added that he likes to vote for all five Council seats. He stated that with that in mind, he thought that Draft Map D was the right map for the moment. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he didn't believe if he was elected by district, that his specific district would be his only concern. Instead, he explained that while he may be elected by -district, he would represent the whole city. Councilmember Colson thanked Councilmember Brownrigg for articulating the sentiments of the Council. She thanked Redistricting Partners for taking into consideration public input and drawing Map D. She voiced support for Map D. She added that she thought it fixed earlier concerns that the public had with the initial three maps. She noted that she was sorry that the Burlingame Hills couldn't be kept together but understood the logic for why it wasn't. 14 Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that at the last hearing, he voiced his support for Map A. However, he noted that Map D makes small changes that he could get behind and therefore, he supported Map D. He concurred with his colleagues that while you are voted into office by district, you represent the entire city. Vice Mayor Ortiz added that while it would be great to keep the Burlingame Hills together, it would cut through other communities of interest. He noted that he spent a lot of time utilizing the mapping tool and thought compromises had to be made. Councilmember Beach concurred with her colleagues and voiced support for Draft Map D. She added that she liked that in Draft Map D, there are two districts that have connections to the Bayfront and the issue of sea level rise. She also liked that two districts share the concern of Broadway Grade Separation and that the Downtown district leans into multi -unit dwellings. Councilmember Beach concurred with Councilmember Brownrigg that when elected, the individual must represent the city as a whole. Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with her colleagues and stated that she thought Draft Map D was the best option. She noted that it incorporated concerns from the last meeting. She added that no map would be perfect. She stated that the public had plenty of opportunities to give input as the City Clerk's Office made themselves available to all. Mayor O'Brien Keighran concurred with her colleagues that it would be important that future Councilmembers don't focus solely on their district but instead represent the city as a whole. Mayor O'Brien Keighran stated that there was consensus from Council to move forward with Draft Map D. c. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 2.25 OF TITLE 2 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING LIMITS ON CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378, 15601(B)(3) City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that Council has had several discussions regarding amending or repealing the City's campaign contribution ordinance. She stated that at the November 1 st meeting, the Council heard overwhelmingly from the community that the public wanted the City to have its own campaign contribution limits. She noted that at the November 1 st meeting, Councilmembers suggested that the ordinance should include the following: • Making the contribution limit the same for both organizations and individuals • Creating a set dollar amount for the escalator • Decreasing the contribution limit due to the City's transition to district elections • Creating a penalty specific to violations of the City's contribution limits • Establishing a voluntary expenditure limit • Creating a lower threshold for the dollar amount that needs to be reported on campaign disclosure statements 15 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer reviewed how Council's suggestions were implemented in the proposed ordinance. Contribution Limits City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the proposed ordinance sets the limit as the same for both individuals and organizations. She stated that beginning in 2022, the contribution limit would be $350. She noted that in the past election cycle, the contribution limit for individuals was $719.93, and for organizations it was $1,439.87. She stated that the proposed contribution limit reflects the fact that candidates will only be campaigning to roughly 1/5th of the city due to the transition to district elections. Escalator City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that under the proposed ordinance, the contribution limit would increase by $25 every two years. She noted that this creates an even number that will be easier for both the City and candidates. In -Kind Contributions City Clerk Hassel -Shearer noted that concerns were raised about individuals receiving in -kind contributions and how potential candidates are educated about regulations surrounding these contributions. She explained that the proposed ordinance references both the State Political Reform Act and the California Code of Regulations regarding in -kind contributions. Moreover, she stated that written into her candidate filing procedures would be a requirement to hand out these sections of State law to potential candidates. Anonymous Contributions and Disclosures in Campaign Statements City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that under State law, candidates and committees are required to report cumulative contributions of $100 or more from a single individual or organization. She noted that in reviewing other cities' regulations, she found that several lowered the reportable amount, as low as $5. She explained that staff was recommending setting the reportable contribution amount to $50. Voluntary Expenditure Limits City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that Council previously suggested creating a cap on the total contributions a candidate can raise in an election cycle. However, she explained that after discussing this request with the City Attorney, it was determined that this would infringe upon an individual's First Amendment rights. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that another way to fulfill the Council's request was by implementing a voluntary expenditure limit. She stated that under this program, a candidate would sign an agreement with the City Clerk regarding whether or not they would abide by the voluntary expenditure limit. She noted that for those candidates who agreed to the limit, the City would publish their names on the City's website, social media accounts, and in Chinese, English, and Spanish newspapers. 16 City Clerk Hassel -Shearer explained that the voluntary expenditure limit would be set by utilizing the calculation of $5 per resident in the district, as determined by the last Census. She noted that because the districts wouldn't be fully defined until after the new year, the proposed ordinance set the amount for 2022 at $30,000. She added that the base amount of $5 would increase each election cycle by $0.25. Penalties City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that staff reviewed how other cities enforced their campaign contribution limits. She explained that the language that staff came up with allows for flexibility. While the City can fine a candidate for violating the limits, staff can also turn the matter over to the District Attorney's Office. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel - Shearer read the title. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Councilmember Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the public hearing. Laura Hinz thanked the City Council for improving the campaign contribution ordinance. Mayor O'Brien Keighran closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that when this item first came to Council, they were considering repealing the City's limits and going with the State program in order to remove the burden of enforcement from staff. He explained that due to the public outcry about how this would create higher limits, Council asked staff to amend the contribution ordinance. He noted that a lot was said about those in favor of going to the State program, and he wanted to clarify that it was to lighten the load of staff. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that he was in favor of the ordinance. Councilmember Brownrigg voiced his appreciation for the quick work of the City Clerk and felt that the ordinance was an improvement from what the contribution limit program was before. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that he thought the Council should consider the possibility of term limits. Councilmember Colson voiced her support for the proposed ordinance. She added that she believed it created a fair baseline for new candidates to run against incumbents. Councilmember Colson voiced her support for equalizing the limits for organizations and individuals. Councilmember Beach thanked staff for their hard work on this item. 17 Councilmember Beach made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Brownrigg. Mayor O'Brien Keighran thanked Vice Mayor Ortiz for articulating how this item came to be. She noted that a meeting with Assemblymember Mullin has been scheduled for the new year to discuss his legislation and how it can be improved. The motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. d. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDING CHAPTER 2.26 TO TITLE 2 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE AUTHORIZING ELECTRONIC AND PAPER METHODS OF FILING CAMPAIGN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS: CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378, 15601(B)(3) AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF STATEMENTS OF ECONOMIC INTERESTS (FORM 700) REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87200 ET SEQ. AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 87300 ET SEQ. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that staff met with NetFile, a company that sells an online platform for filing campaign statements and Form 700s. She explained that she previously worked with this company at the San Mateo County Elections Office. She stated that by purchasing this platform, the City will enable individuals to easily file their Form 700s and campaign statements online. She noted that pursuant to AB 2452, the City needed to adopt an ordinance allowing for the electronic filing of campaign finance disclosure statements. City Clerk Hassel -Shearer stated that this system would assist the City Clerk's Office. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. City Clerk Hassel - Shearer read the title. Councilmember Colson made a motion to waive further reading and introduce the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the public hearing. No one spoke. Vice Mayor Ortiz made a motion to bring back the ordinance for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 10. STAFF REPORTS a. DISCUSSION OF A PARKLET RENT/FEE STRUCTURE, PARKLET DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, AND EXTENSION OF PARKLET PROGRAM THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2022 18 CDD Gardiner reviewed the background of this item. He explained that at the August 16th meeting, Council discussed: • Extending the parklet program for one year with a review in August 2022 • Interest in indemnification language • Interest in fees to cover cleaning and potential other costs • Increased cleaning on Burlingame Avenue • Consensus that the parklets are to be used at least four days a week CDD Gardiner stated that staff reviewed this item with the Economic Development Subcommittee. He explained that the Economic Development Subcommittee discussed a fee and rental rate framework for parklets based on previous Council direction. The subcommittee considered a fee framework based on the City of Mountain View's Sidewalk Cafe Program. He stated that Mountain View's program includes the following components: • New application: $769 • Annual sidewalk cleaning fee: $6.00 per square foot of sidewalk space • Annual rent: $1,200 per parking space utilized • Permit Renewal: $205 • Minimum five-year license term and indemnity agreement CDD Gardiner stated that staff contacted the other cities in San Mateo County to determine which jurisdictions were considering longer -term parklet programs. He noted the following: • San Bruno — parklet program is limited to a total of five parklets on San Mateo Avenue. All processing, reviewing, and inspection fees are waived, including deposit for a revocable encroachment permit and/or encroachment permit to allow for a restaurant to provide outdoor dining and install a parklet until December 31, 2022 • South San Francisco — is in the process of implementing a long-term parklet program; the permit will cost $500 and be renewed annually • San Mateo — after April 30, 2022, businesses wishing to continue utilizing a parklet will need to apply for a new permit, and will need to adjust their parklet to conform to new design guidelines. Fees will be $500 per permit application plus $250 per parking space used in the parklet. • Redwood City — has been considering an extension of their program but has not yet determined if it will be made permanent. CDD Gardiner stated that he also reviewed the programs of other cities including: • Los Gatos — parklet program has pre -approved design guidelines with an $8,700 application fee. The program offers a subsidy for construction costs, covering $40,000, or 75% of the construction cost • Capitola — long term parklet program is being implemented that would allow up to 25 parklets. Permit fees would be waived; however a $500 deposit would be collected, and there would be an annual rent of $3,400 per parking space per year with an annual CPI adjustment. CDD Gardiner stated that in potentially adapting the Mountain View framework for Burlingame, the value (or rent) applicable to the parking space being occupied by the parklet would need to be determined. He 19 explained that this would be a proportion or fraction of the market rent for fully -improved retail space. The square footage of a typical parklet space in Mountain View is 300 square feet, so at $1,200 per parklet per year, the rent would be $1,200/300 square feet = $4.00 per square foot. CDD Gardiner explained that per Loopnet, the average retail rent in Mountain View is $42.71 per square foot per year. Therefore, the proportion of the parklet rent to the average retail rent would be $4.00/$42.71 = 9%. CDD Gardiner stated that according to Loopnet, the average retail rent in Downtown Burlingame is $55.00 per square foot per year. Utilizing the same 9% ratio of parklet rent to retail rent as used in Mountain View, the annual parklet rent in Burlingame would be 9% of $55.000, which equals $4.95 per square foot per year. The parklets in Burlingame, like those in Mountain View, are typically 300 square feet, so this would suggest an annual parklet rent of $4.95 per square foot x 300 square feet which equals $1,485 per year. CDD Gardiner stated that using this methodology, a sample Burlingame fee and rental rate framework would include: • Cleaning fees: estimated to be $300 per parklet per month • Annual rent: 300 square feet multiplied by $4.95 per square feet = $1,485 • Indemnification/license term • Compliance with Public Health & Safety, and Americans with Disability Act requirements • Basic design standards Councilmember Brownrigg commented that the Economic Development Subcommittee tried, but did not have a lot of input from restaurants. He noted that by law, the cleaning fee has to be cost recovery, and the $300 fee is calculated by Public Works. He stated that he thought this might be a little too high. Vice Mayor Ortiz asked how Capitola would determine who gets a parklet. CDD Gardiner replied that it is a lottery. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that staff is looking to ensure that the parklets are utilized. He added that he was confident that the City could come up with a satisfying solution. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if the businesses knew the Economic Development Subcommittee was talking about this issue. CDD Gardiner replied in the affirmative. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked if any concerns were brought up with this potential proposal. CDD Gardiner replied that there was discussion about the ability of parklets to be maintained long-term and their aesthetics. Vice Mayor Ortiz stated that it seemed like the conversation was more tailored around aesthetics than price. Councilmember Brownrigg stated that Council cannot assume that this issue is widely understood among the restaurant community, and he doesn't know how they feel about a $5,000 price tag for having a parklet. 20 Mayor O'Brien Keighran opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke. Councilmember Colson stated that she believes there should be some type of permit fee, but would leave it to staff to determine. She explained that the annual fee could be rounded up to $1,500 to make it easy. She noted that the cleaning fee is needed as she has heard from various people that the streets and sidewalks are very dirty. She added that if the cost to clean the streets is lower than they anticipate, then the fee could always be lowered. Councilmember Colson stated that the established parklet should be transferrable to a new owner but that the new owner should have to get their own permit. She noted that the fee could be prorated. She added that she believed parklets should be revocable between businesses. Councilmember Beach agreed with Councilmember Colson. She stated she liked the framework proposed, and that the cleaning is crucial. She noted she is fine with the parklets being transferrable. She said it doesn't make sense for the parklets to just be torn down only to be rebuilt again as that seems like a waste of money and resources. Vice Mayor Ortiz agreed with Councilmember Colson except on the topic of transferability. He explained that he thought every business should make their own assessment on if a parklet was worth it. Councilmember Brownrigg agreed with all the prior comments. He commented he is happy with whatever is decided on transferability. Mayor O'Brien Keighran agreed with Vice Mayor Ortiz that when a new tenant comes in, the new business should have to submit a new permit, as the needs of the business might be different. She worried that the new business might change something around, and the City would not know. She stated that the cleaning fee is needed as the City has invested a lot in the new streets and sidewalks and wants to keep them clean. Councilmember Colson clarified that on transferability, she agrees that the new business should have to submit a new permit. She asked about the sidewalk tables and spacing requirements. DPW Murtuza explained that staff is working with the downtown businesses on obtaining their encroachment permits and meeting ADA standards. City Manager Goldman stated that businesses must comply with ADA requirements within their parklets. DPW Murtuza added that each business has an insurance certificate for their parklet, and that it isn't transferrable. CDD Gardiner commented that as there are fees involved, there would need to be a public hearing. Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked what the timeframe would be. City Manager Goldman replied that staff is looking to implement this program as soon as possible. 21 City Manager Goldman asked Council if the rent and fees should be implemented together, or if staff should work on rent first in order to get the process started sooner. Council voiced support for working on the rent first. Councilmember Brownrigg made a motion to adopt the $1,500 rent program, with cleaning fees to be adopted in the future and with any future fee escalation to be approved by Council; seconded by Vice Mayor Ortiz. The motioned passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Mayor O'Brien Keighran asked that Council agendize a discussion on license plate readers due to the uptick in car burglaries. The Council agreed to agendize this discussion. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlin-a�g. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Brien Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:24pm in memory of Margie De Wolfe. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Meaghan Hassel -Shearer City Clerk 22