Millbrae council accepts CBD plan with amendments, removes condo parcels from proposed assessment

Millbrae — The City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to accept an informational report on a proposed Millbrae Downtown and El Camino Real Community Benefit District and to return an amended plan after several map and assessment changes requested by council members.

The council’s action, taken after a lengthy presentation by consultant Marco Lemandri of New City America and extensive public comment, directs staff to remove residential condominium parcels and some single-family parcels from the proposed assessment rolls and to shift several commercial properties from the lower-assessed Zone 2 into the higher-assessed Zone 1. Mayor Andrew Fung made the motion and Council Member Steven Rinaldi seconded it; the vote was 5-0.

The Community Benefit District (CBD) would levy an annual property assessment on parcels inside a defined boundary to fund sidewalk cleaning, public-space improvements, district identity/marketing and administration. Consultant Marco Lemandri told the council the petition phase requires signatures from property owners representing at least 30% by dollar amount of assessed parcels to trigger a community-wide ballot; the ballot itself is decided by a weighted, dollar-amount vote of the affected property owners.

Council members said they supported the concept but pressed for changes to reduce the burden on small residential owners. After back-and-forth about the draft map and assessment menu, the council directed staff and the consultant to exclude condominium parcels from the assessment and to remove single-family parcels on Hemlock Avenue and certain Park Boulevard/Park Place lots. Council also asked staff to reassign several high-footprint commercial properties — including Friendship Plaza and two downtown hotels (Aloft and Westin) — from Zone 2 into Zone 1, where the per-square-foot assessment would be higher.

Consultant: petition, weighted ballots, spending plan

Marco Lemandri, who described prior CBD work across California, told the council the district’s funding would be apportioned across three assessment factors — building square footage, lot area and linear frontage — with building square footage generating about half of revenue. “The petition must be signed based upon the plan and the services that are being promoted … by 30% of the property owners by dollar amount,” Lemandri said. He emphasized that if a petition succeeds the city would mail ballots to property owners and the district would form only if a majority-by-dollar supported it.

Under the draft management plan presented to council, roughly $742,000 a year would pay for district services in the first year: about 60% for sidewalk safety and cleanliness (sweeping, pressure washing, graffiti removal), 20% for district identity and placemaking (marketing, public-space development), and 20% for administration and contingency. Condo owners in the draft plan represented about $43,000 of the total first-year assessment — roughly 5–6% — a figure that council members said they could cover by modest map adjustments and reassigning commercial parcels.

Public comment: property owners, small-business concerns and management experience

More than a dozen in-person and online speakers urged both caution and support. Several condominium residents opposed being assessed; business and property owners urged clearer demonstrations of management, oversight and expected returns on investment. Multiple speakers from other Bay Area cities warned the council to scrutinize the choice of a management company and governance structure.

Sunny, a downtown property owner who described experience with a New City America-managed CBD in Oakland, told the council that property owners there paid assessments while lacking sufficient oversight and performance reporting. He said, “I am now paying nearly $9,000 per year on a 40,000-square-foot building with little benefit.” Several Millbrae residents urged language transparency in the petition mailings and better translations for non-English speakers.

Council direction and next steps

Council members asked staff to prepare an updated fact sheet and a revised packet that reflects the council’s map/assessment changes and provides a detailed administrative-cost breakdown and accountability measures for presentation at a future session. City staff said petitions would continue to be collected through the consultant’s outreach and would be returned to the city when the petition threshold is met. If petitions meet the 30% threshold, the city will return to council with a resolution of intent and a formal mailed ballot and hearing schedule targeting a ballot hearing in July so assessments can be placed on the following year’s property tax roll if approved.

What the vote did and did not decide

The council’s vote accepted the informational report and provided direction for specific revisions to the proposed district boundary and assessment methodology; it did not adopt the district or place assessments on tax rolls. Those steps require a successful petition and a separate ballot and public hearing process under California law.

Community impact and oversight

Council members repeatedly said they wanted the district to be property-owner managed and transparent. Under the draft plan, an owners’ association (a nonprofit corporation) would serve as the district’s board; the board would hire an executive director and manage operations subject to Brown Act and public-record obligations and annual reporting to the city.

The council also asked staff to consider excluding owner-occupied condominiums or other targeted residential parcels where the financial burden would be disproportionate. Staff said the requested map and assessment changes would be incorporated into the materials sent to property owners and the city would post an updated fact sheet and multilingual materials on the city website and make them available at a walking tour of the proposed district scheduled the following day.

Ending

Councilmembers described the CBD as one tool among several — including parking strategy, permitting reforms and public-safety investments — that the city could use to revitalize downtown. The council’s amendments narrow the initial assessment base; the petition and subsequent ballot will determine whether property owners broadly support forming the district.

Topics: community-benefit-district, downtown-economic-development, property-assessments

Speakers cited in text: Marco Lemandri (New City America consultant), Tom Williams (City Manager), Andy Mogensen (Community Development Director), Mayor Andrew Fung (Mayor), Councilmember Steven Rinaldi (Council Member), Councilmember Cissy Riley (Council Member), Councilmember (first name not specified) Duen (Council Member), Vice Mayor Reuben Holiver (Vice Mayor), Councilmember Edward Goodwin (Council Member), Sunny (property owner, commenter), Marion Kong (resident), Ray Louie (resident).