STUDY SESSION ON REGULATIONS
FOR OUTDOOR DINING FACILITIES
IN CITY STREETS AND ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 24, 2023
Darcy Smith, Assistant City Manager
Hae Won Ritchie, City Engineer/PW Deputy Director
Peter Gilli, Community and Economic Development Director Agenda Item 4a
2 Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Draft Regulations for Parklets
IV. Draft Regulations for Outdoor Dining Facilities on Private Property
V. Impact on Businesses with Outdoor Dining Established During the Pandemic
VI. Tonight’s Recommended Action
VII.Questions
3 Objective
• Hold Study Session on outdoor dining for the City Council and public
• Receive City Council direction on draft regulations for outdoor dining facilities in City streets and on private property
4 Background
5 Background on Outdoor Dining
• In 2020 during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, significant concerns about restaurants going out of business when their indoor dining was limited
• State and City allowed businesses to set up temporary outdoor operations on public and private property
• City Executive Order No. 20-01 in June 2020 allowed temporary outdoor dining on public and private property subject to defined requirements
• City Executive Order No. 20-02 in August 2020 replaced Order 20-01 and continued to permit outdoor dining and other outdoor operations subject to defined requirements
6 Background on Outdoor Dining
• Temporary emergency provisions essentially waived typical standards, permits, parking requirements, permit fees, and enforcement actions
• Helped restaurants and other businesses maintain operations during the pandemic when indoor operations were reduced or prohibited
• Allowed these businesses to operate in a safe manner
• Sidewalks or parking areas immediately in front of the business were the preferred location - Parklets were not permitted • Provide an active, pedestrian friendly street experience 7 Background on Outdoor Dining
• In October 2022, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that the COVID-19 State of Emergency that started on March 4, 2020 will end on February 28, 2023
• With the upcoming anticipated end of the state and related local emergency orders, staff recommends adopting new permanent regulations and permit processes for outdoor dining
• Would allow restaurants throughout the city an opportunity to offer outdoor dining beyond the pandemic
8 City Council Study Session in September 2021
• Public Works Department initiated development of the parklet program in 2021
• Regulations would regulate parklets in public parking spaces on San Mateo Avenue in the Downtown
• City Council conducted a Study Session in September 2021 regarding the parklet regulations
• City Council reviewed and provided feedback
• Based on feedback, additional work was completed on the parklet program, along with new draft private property regulations 9 Purpose and Guiding Policy Objectives
• Allow restaurants the opportunity to offer outdoor
dining for economic and community vitality
• Provide an active, pedestrian friendly street
experience
• Balance the needs of all users of the street
• Ensure aesthetically pleasing designs that are
compatible with the City’s long-range plans
• Limit impacts on parking in City streets and on
private property
10 Purpose and Guiding Policy Objectives
• Provide adequate separation between
pedestrians and outdoor diner
• Provide for protection of parklet users from
adjacent vehicular traffic
• Establish new design and operational
standards to provide appropriate regulatory
oversight
• Establish efficient and streamlined permit
requirements and processes
• Set appropriate fees for adequate cost
recovery
11 Draft Parklet Regulations
12 Parklet Overview
• A “parklet” is a temporary sidewalk
extension that provides outside dining for
restaurants
• Parklets are typically installed within the
parking lane in commercial districts
• Regulated by Public Works through
ministerial permits required both to construct
and for the temporary use of the City street
• Most cities charge an annual use of space fee, similar to rent for use of the public street and to offset the loss in meter revenue and for annual inspections
13 Parklet Program Update
• Application materials
• Fee study and analysis of fees and processes of nearby jurisdictions
• Ordinance development
• Permit regulations
• Plan to take Parklet Ordinance to City Council in March/April 2023 and initiate Parklet Program after adoption
14 Parklet Requirements
• General Siting – Curbside on San Mateo Avenue, directly in front of the associated restaurant where on-street parking spaces exist, taking up 1-2 parking spaces with setbacks from corners, travel lanes and adjacent parking
• Downtown location only – Only on San Mateo Avenue within the Downtown (Central Business District)
• Maximum – 5 total in Downtown and 2 per block
15 Potential Parklet Locations
Central
Business District
(CBD Zones)
16 Parklet Requirements
Parking and Traffic Protection
• Railings must separate the
parklet from the street and
surrounding parking spaces for
safety
• Required to be screened
utilizing aesthetically pleasing
treatment and materials such as
wood or metal, or painted
17 Parklet Siting Standards
18 Proposed Parklet Permit Fees
Parklet Permit Fee $1,886
Encroachment Permit $350
Revocable Encroachment Permit $615
Annual Use of Space Fee Year 1 $2,185
Annual Use of Space Fee Year 2 $2,185
Total Fees for Permit + 2 years Use* $7,221
*Architectural Review Committee Review Adds Approx. $3,000 19 Next Steps
• Plan to take Parklet Ordinance to Council in
March/April 2023 to begin Parklet Program after
adoption
20 Draft Private Property Regulations
21 Private Property Outdoor Dining Overview
• On private property and part of restaurants
• Permanent, not temporary
• Include tables, chair and benches,
screening, and may also include structures
and equipment for weather protection
• Establish new permitting process
22 Private Property Outdoor Dining Background
• Some restaurants had outdoor dining on
private property prior to the pandemic
• During the pandemic a few restaurants
expanded outdoor dining to parking
spaces and other areas on their property
23 Private Property Outdoor Dining Parking Requirements • To add outdoor dining, the business would be required to:
• Locate behind the sidewalk that is private property where outdoor dining can be safely accommodated (State health and safety codes); and
• Provide off-site parking based on the City’s current parking requirement of one parking space per 100 square feet of dining area; • If parking is impacted, the business must:
Provide new on-site parking to offset loss
Pay the parking in-lieu fees for sites in the Transit Corridors Specific Plan Area
24 Private Property Outdoor Dining Parking Requirements • To encourage economic activity and create an inviting atmosphere, an exemption is recommended:
• Allow the first 200 square-feet of private property outdoor dining to be exempt from providing parking
25 Illustrative Example #1
26 Illustrative Example #2
27 Illustrative Example #3
-200 sq. ft. exemption
800 sq. ft. area
600 sq. ft. area for parking
calculations
6 spaces required
28 Illustrative Example #4
600 sq. ft. area
400 sq. ft. area for parking
calculations
4 parking spaces
-200 sq. ft. area exemption
+2 parking spaces removed
6 additional parking spaces
required
29 Private Property Outdoor Dining Requirements
• Fencing – required for certain areas for
safety and screening
• Utilities – Cannot block utilities, hydrants, etc
• Code Compliance – Must comply with
standard private property building, fire, health
codes
• Other Requirements - Address maintenance,
lighting, portable heaters, umbrellas, fixtures,
accessibility requirements
30 Required Permits and Fees
• Outdoor Dining Facility Permit – reviewed and acted on by the Planning Division
New planning permit fee proposed at $1,889 based on
fee study
• Building Permit – may be required, subject to the scope of the project and California Building Code and Fire Code Building permit fees based on valuation of project
• Parking In-Lieu Fee (only in Transit Corridors Plan)
$2,991.69 for 1 to 5 spaces
$5,982.21 for 6 to10 spaces
$11,964.42 for more than 10 spaces
31 Next Steps
Finalize regulations and present at a future meeting for adoption Planning Commission hearing projected for March/April 2023 City Council adoption after Commission review
32 Impact on Businesses with Outdoor Dining
Established During the Pandemic
33 Existing Businesses with Outdoor Dining
4 parking spaces converted to outdoor dining ~ outdoor dining size unknown
J.C. Bruno’s - 741 San Mateo Ave
Pre-Pandemic (2019)
1,700 sq. ft. dining / 64 seats inside
Today
34 Existing Businesses with Outdoor Dining
J.C. Bruno - 741 San Mateo Ave
Today
35 Existing Businesses with Outdoor Dining
Celia’s - 201 El Camino Real
Several parking spaces, including residential carports, converted to outdoor dining ~ size unknown
Pre-Pandemic (2019) Early Pandemic (2020)
36 Existing Businesses with Outdoor Dining
Celia’s - 201 El Camino Real
Today
37 Existing Businesses with Outdoor Dining
Camino Corner - 110 El Camino Real
2 parking spaces converted to outdoor dining ~ 400 sq. ft. outdoor dining Pre-Pandemic (2019) Today
38 Existing Businesses with Outdoor Dining
Camino Corner
Early Pandemic (2020) Today
39 T onight’s Recommended Action
40 T onight’s Recommended Action
• Hold Study Session on outdoor dining for the City
Council and public
• Receive City Council direction on draft regulations for outdoor dining facilities in City streets and on private property
QUESTIONS?
41 STAFF
UPDATE
ON
THE
CITY’S RESPONSE
TO
LATE
2022/EARLY
2023
WINTER
STORMS
Presented to the San Bruno City Council on January 24, 2023 Matt Lee, Public Works Director
• City Response To Late 2022/Early 2023 Storm
Updates Since January 10, 2023
• Progress to Date
Areas of Damage
Damage Status by Type
• Ongoing Processes and Next Steps
• Questions
AGENDA AND OBJECTIVE
2 • Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
Deactivated at 5p.m. on Thursday,
January 12
Ready to be reactivated as needed
City remains under Local State of
Emergency
• Continuing to assess damages and
repairs
CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022/EARLY 2023 STORM
3 AREAS OF DAMAGE (as of January 24, 2023)
4 5
DAMAGE STATUS BY TYPE
Mud Hill Slide - 8
Damage Type
6 DAMAGE STATUS BY TYPE
Sink Hole - 4
Damage Type
DAMAGE STATUS BY TYPE
Street-Related Outages - 5
Damage Type
7 DAMAGE STATUS BY TYPE
8 Sump Pump Failure - 1
Damage Type
DAMAGE STATUS BY TYPE
9 Silt - 1
Damage Type
10 • Currently Responding to and Assessing Damage to
Infrastructure in Between Storms
• Respond to New Storm Damage
• Continual Monitoring of Weather Patterns
• Continue to Monitor Known Areas of Interest
• Implement Repairs as Quickly as is Feasible
ONGOING PROCESSES AND NEXT STEPS
STAY CONNECTED
11 QUESTIONS?
12 January 24, 2023Michael Smith, Senior Planner
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN OVERRIDE OF THE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION’S LAND USE
INCONSISTENCY DETERMINATION AND ADOPT THE
2023
-
2031 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
Agenda Item 7a Peter Gilli, Community and Economic Development Director 2 Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background
• Housing Element
• Override Process
III. Environmental Review
IV. Planning Commission Review
V. Tonight’s Recommended Action
VI. Questions
VII. Public Comment
VIII. Action
• Tonight’s Recommended Action
• Questions
• Public Comment
• Action
3 Objective
Conduct a Public Hearing, deliberate, and
adopt Resolutions:
1. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)
2. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
Override
3. General Plan Text Amendment and 2023
– 2031 Housing Element
4 Background
5 Timeline
2021
• Public
workshops
and webinar
series
2022
• Website launch, utility bill insert,
online survey, workshops
• Jan and May – Council study
sessions
• May – Jun – Public review of
draft Housing Element
• Jun – PC review
• Oct – HCD comments received
• Dec – Revised draft published
Jan 2023
• PC hearing
• Council
adoption
hearing
• HCD deadline
• HCD = State Dept of Housing
and Community Development
• PC = Planning Commission
6 Housing Element Adoption Deadline
• Due January 31, 2023
• Consequences of Late Adoption
• Loss of access to grant funds
• Required expedited rezoning of site inventory
• Potential lawsuits by individuals, developers, third parties or the State
• Potential fines
• Potential loss of land-use decision making
7 Housing Element Deadline
“Builder’s Remedy”
• State Housing Accountability Act (HAA) limits local ability to deny certain housing projects
• If Housing Element not adopted on time, local ability reduced even further
• City cannot deny certain housing projects even if they do not comply with the General Plan or zoning regulations
8 Housing Element Components
Housing Needs Assessment
Evaluation of Past
Performance
Housing Sites Inventory
Community Engagement
Constraints Analysis
Programs and Policies
Affirmatively Furthering Fair
Housing
9 Needs Assessment Highlights
• Adequate housing options out of
reach for many
• Higher resource neighborhoods in the
hills
• Neighborhoods east of El Camino
Real
• More rent-burdened
• More overcrowded
• Worse environmental conditions
• Experience more displacement, and
• Have more substandard housing
10 San Bruno Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Household Income
Category RHNA 15 Percent
Buffer
RHNA +
Buffer
Very Low (<50% AMI) 704 106 810
Low (50-80% AMI) 405 61 466
Moderate (80-120%
AMI) 573 86 659
Above Moderate
(>120% AMI) 1,483 222 1,705
Total Housing Units 3,165 475 3,640
• AMI = Average Median Income (family of four is $166,000) 11 Meeting RHNA
PROJECT TYPE UNITS
Pipeline Projects 670
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) 240
Sites Inventory 2,709
Housing Units Constructed since July 1st 43
Total Housing Units 3,662
12 Site Inventory
Sites identified for 2,709
units
Sites focused in:
Transit Corridors Plan
Area
Bayhill Specific Plan
Former Engvall school
Tanforan area
13 Site Inventory
Some sites reused from previous Housing
Element cycles
Best estimate of what is likely to develop, to
show the State we have sufficient sites to
accommodate our RHNA
Focus on underutilized sites
Based on conversations with property owners
and developers
Housing development not limited to only these
sites
Mailed two notices to property owners
Does not preclude other uses
14 Housing Programs
• Develop Objective Design Standards for Housing Development (Program 1- D)
• Shared Housing Staff (21-Elements) to implement and manage housing programs (Program 3-A)
• Support legal counsel and advocacy assistance for renters and residents with disproportionate housing needs (Program 4-E)
• Participate in a regional down payment assistance program (Program 4-Q) • Support social services for housing and homeless prevention (Program 4-S) 15 State Review Timeline
May –
June
2022
30-day
public
comment
July
2022
1st HCD
review
Oct 2022
HCD
letter
received
Dec 2022
Posted
revised
document
Jan 24,
2023
Council
adoption
hearing
Jan 31,
2023
2nd
submittal
to HCD
• HCD = State Dept of Housing and Community Development 16 Revisions to Housing Element
HCD comments received October 6, 2022:
City revisions:
• Significant narrative and illustrations added
without change to policy
• Expanded commitments and shorter
timeframes for Housing Programs
17 Overview of the Override Process
18 Airport Noise Contours
Noise Contours from
SFO
Shaded area are 70 dB
or greater
Residential uses
considered incompatible
Existing neighborhoods
in the noise contours
19 Airport Noise Contours
Two sites within noise contours:
The Shops at Tanforan – 1,000 units (Site
#14)
The Pet Hospital – 60 units (Site #19)
20 The City’s ALUC Override Process
Three Steps:
Hold a public hearing
Make specific findings
Approval of override by 2/3 vote
Two Meetings:
Intent to override – November 15,
2022
Final decision to override (after
considering input) – January 24, 2023
21 ALUC Override Process
October 27, 2022
Airport Land Use Committee
Meeting
Determined Housing Element
inconsistent with Airport Plan
November 10, 2022
Airport Land Use Commission
Meeting
Determined Housing Element
inconsistent with Airport Plan
November 15, 2022
City Council Public Hearing to
consider Resolution making
draft findings and declaring an
intent to override, and providing
30-day review notice to ALUC
and Caltrans
January 24, 2023
City Council meeting to adopt a
Resolution for the override and
adopt the Housing Element Update
and associated General Plan
Amendment
22 Implications of an Override
Implications of a Local Agency Override Action
There are two key outcomes of a local agency override of an Airport Land Use Commission decision:
The proposed land use action may proceed, subject to local agency review and permitting processes, as if it had been found consistent with this ALUCP by the Airport Land Use Commission.
The agency operating the airport “shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury caused by or resulting directly or indirectly from the public agency’s decision to override the commission’s action or recommendation”.
23 Public Comment on the Override
SFO objects to the override
Concerns with placing housing in area with noise impacts Belief that City resolution is insufficient to support overriding the ALUC’s inconsistency determination
Caltrans Aeronautical Division also commented that they believe City’s findings are insufficient to warrant the proposed override because they are inconsistent with PUC Sec. 21670
Findings revised in response to these comments
24 Benefits of Housing at Tanforan and Pet Hospital Site Situated near high quality transit:
BART station
On El Camino Real with bus service
0.4 miles to Caltrain Station
In a mixed-use area
Surrounded by an arterial and collector street network On I-380 and close to Highway 101 and I-280
Preliminary project application filed for Tanforan project 25 Basis for Recommended Action
Orderly development near the airport can be achieved. Sound insulation can be provided to reduce interior noise levels from exterior sources to CNEL 45 dBA or lower.
An avigation easement can be granted to the City and County of San Francisco as operator of SFO.
Difficult to find another location within the community for 1,060 housing units.
Additional review is required at the project level.
The project shall include an indemnification agreement with the City of San Bruno prior to issuance of building permits, ensuring that liability related to noise is assumed by the project.
26 General Plan Amendment
General Plan
Policy Proposed Amendment
HS-40 Prohibit new residential development within the
70+ Airport CNEL areas, as dictated by Airport
Land Use Commission infill criteria,
unless, on
a project-by-project basis, a proposed
residential development is approved through
the Local Agency Override process consistent
with the Public Utilities Code Section
21675.1(d).
27 T onight’s Recommended Action on the Override
28 Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background
• Housing Element
• Override Process
III. Environmental Review
IV. Planning Commission Review
V. Tonight’s Recommended Action
VI. Questions
VII. Public Comment
VIII. Action
• Tonight’s Recommended Action
• Questions
• Public Comment
• Action
29 T onight’s Recommended Action – Override
1. Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and overriding the Airport Land Use Commission’s determination of inconsistency with respect to noise policies for San Bruno’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update; and
3. Adopt a General Plan Text Amendment to Policy HS-40, and adopt the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, with findings that the Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, and authorize staff to submit the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification 30 T onight’s Recommended Action – Override
1. Council Questions – on the Override
2. Public Comment – on the Override
3. City Council action on the Override – 2/3 Vote Required • Adopt a Resolution making findings and overriding the Airport Land Use Commission’s determination of inconsistency with respect to noise policies for San Bruno’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
31 Environmental Review
32 Environmental Review
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for General Plan text amendment and Housing Element
Identified the following potential environmental impacts:
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Noise and Vibration
Transportation
33 Planning Commission Review
34 Planning Commission Review
Recommendation by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2023:
Adopt the environmental documents; and
Adopt the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update, replacing the 2015- 2023 Housing Element, and instruct staff to forward it to HCD for review, and adopt a related General Plan text amendment related to the allowance of housing in airport noise impacted areas. 35 Planning Commission Review
Additionally:
Incorporate the mitigation policies identified in the environmental document into the Housing Element as City policies. (City Attorney recommended)
To the extent possible prior to HCD submittal, incorporate additional information into the site inventory analysis to justify redevelopment.
Consider adoption of a jobs to housing ratio-based housing target for the Tanforan site.
36 T onight’s Recommended Action on the Housing Element 37 T onight’s Recommended Action
1. Adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and overriding the Airport Land Use Commission’s determination of inconsistency with respect to noise policies for San Bruno’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update; and
3. Adopt a General Plan Text Amendment to Policy HS-40, and adopt the 2023 – 2031 Housing Element, with findings that the Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law, and authorize staff to submit the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for certification QUESTIONS?
38 REVIEW COMMERCIAL CANNABIS
REGULATIONS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2023Peter Gilli, Community & Econ. Dev. Director Agenda Item 8a
2 Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background on Commercial Cannabis Regulations
III. Suspension of Operator’s Permit Application Period IV. Councilmember Suggested Amendments
V. Tonight’s Recommended Action
VI. Questions
3 Objective
Review Commercial Cannabis Regulations and Provide
Direction on Potential Amendments
4 Background on Commercial Cannabis Regulations
5 Timeline on Commercial Cannabis Regulations
2018
Nov –
Council
prohibits
commercial
cannabis
uses
2020
Apr – July –
Council
considered
ballot
measure for
cannabis tax
and
regulations (6
meetings)
Nov – Voters
approve 10%
cannabis tax
measure
2021
Initiate
contract for
commercial
cannabis
regulations
2022
Council work
plan goal
Feb – Council
study session
on regulations
Sept/Oct –
Council
adoption on
commercial
cannabis
regulations
2023
Jan –
Discussion of
revising
certain
commercial
cannabis
regulations
6 Adopted City Cannabis Regulations
Maximum of four cannabis businesses
• Retail allowed with limitations
• Distribution allowed with limitations
• No cultivation
• No manufacturing
• No testing/laboratories
• No microbusinesses
• No temporary events
• No cafes for onsite consumption
7 Cannabis Retailers
Retail sale of cannabis and cannabis products for adult-use purposes
• Entry restricted to adults 21 and older (State)
• Can include delivery services (State)
• No manufacturing
• Maximum of three (3)
8 Cannabis Distribution Facility
Procurement, sale and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between State licensed cannabis businesses
• No manufacturing on-site
• No retail sales on-site
• Maximum of one (1)
9 Sensitive Uses
State recommends use of buffers from sensitive uses
City regulations state:
• No cannabis business can be within 600 feet of sensitive uses • Sensitive uses defined as:
• Youth centers
• Daycare centers
• Schools
• Parks
• Public libraries
10 Illustrative Map of Adopted Regulations
Maximum 4
• Retail (up to 3) – blue and yellow parcels
• Distribution (up to 1) – purple parcels
Not allowed within sensitive use buffers
11 Adopted Commercial Cannabis Process
1. File Commercial Cannabis Operators Permit
2. City staff pre-screens applications – pass/fail
3. City Council review and selection of Operator’s Permit at a publicly noticed meeting
4. Selected businesses file Conditional Use Permit for Planning Commission and City Council review and action
5. City issuance of Operator’s Permit
12 Operator’s Permit Application Requirements
• Background Check Documentation
• Proof of Capitalization
• Signed and notarized Property Owner Consent form, Lease Agreement, or a “Letter of Intention” to Lease.
• Business Plan
• Labor and Community Benefit Plan
• Neighborhood Compatibility Plan & Odor Control Plan
• Safety and Hazardous Materials Plan
• Security Plan
• Location and Site Plans
13 Suspension of Operator’s Permit Application Period
14 Suspension of Application Period
• Deadline for applications was to be January 17.
• Based on January 10 direction, application period was suspended pending Council discussion
• Letter sent to interested parties list and website updated • No CCOP applications were submitted
Reopen application period upon:
1. Council decision not to amend ordinances or;
2. Effective date of Council adoption of amended ordinances 15 Councilmember Suggested Amendments
16 Illustrative Map of Councilmember Suggested Amendments Maximum 2 4
• Retail (up to 1 3) – blue and yellow parcels
• Distribution (up to 2 1) – purple parcels
Not allowed within sensitive use buffers
17 T onight’s Recommended Action
18 T onight’s Recommended Action
Review the commercial cannabis regulations and provide
direction on proposed changes, if any.
QUESTIONS?
19 LOCAL CAMPAIGN
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 24, 2023Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney
Jovan Grogan, City Manager
2 Agenda
I. Background
II. Overview of Local Campaign Finance Regulations
III. Proposed Ordinance
IV. Recommended Action
3 Background
March 29, 2022 study session - City Council directed
staff to return with an ordinance establishing local
campaign contribution limits.
December 13, 2022 -
City Council considered proposed ordinance
Raised questions about provision prohibiting anonymous donations
Requested staff to return with ordinance that does impose requirements that are in addition to existing requirements in the California Political Reform Act for contributions less than $100.
4 Background
January 10, 2023, City Council requested
revised ordinance that:
(i) includes an inflation adjustment to the
limit amount, and
(ii) removes civil lawsuit enforcement
measures.
5 Background
AB 571 (Statutes of 2019, chapter 556) beginning
January 1, 2021, state campaign contribution limit
applies by default to candidates when the city has
not already enacted a contribution limit.
Default contribution limit for 2021-2022 was
$4,900 per person, per election.
Default amount is updated biennially for inflation.
Updated amount for 2023-24 is $5,500.
6 Proposed Ordinance
Prohibits a contribution from a person to a
candidate in excess of $500, adjusted by CPI in
every odd year.
Limit does not apply to contributions of
candidate’s personal funds to candidate’s own
campaign.
Requires notice about limits on every written
solicitation for campaign contributions.
7 Proposed Ordinance
Does not apply to campaigns for a ballot
measure, referendum, or initiative election.
Requires electronic filing of campaign
statements.
Establishes penalties:
Infraction - fine not to exceed $250
Misdemeanor - up to 6 months in jail and fine up to
$1000
Administrative fine - up to 3 times amount of
contribution
8 Proposed Ordinance
Prohibits anonymous contributions in any amount.
Must track source of all contributions.
Political Reform Act
Gov’t Code Section 84304 prohibits anonymous
contribution of $100 or more from a person.
Gov’t Code Section 84211 requires reporting for “total amount of contributions received during the period
covered by the campaign statement from persons who
have given a cumulative amount of one hundred dollars
($100) or more.”
Implied obligation to track contributions under $100. 9 Recommended Action
To establish local campaign contribution limits, the
motion is as follows:
Introduce, read by title only, and waive further reading of an ordinance adding Chapter 2.33 to the San Bruno Municipal Code Adopting Local Contribution Limits
10 Questions