Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular Meeting on February 22, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 7:05 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by City Attorney Guina.
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.
5. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Ortiz reviewed upcoming events in the city.
6. PRESENTATIONS
a. PG&E UPDATE
PG&E representative Bill Chiang began by explaining that PG&E is committed to providing safe, reliable, affordable service, and laying the foundation to meet customers’ future energy needs. He noted that his presentation would cover:
• How PG&E manages reliability
• Electric circuits serving Burlingame
• The city’s outage history
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
2 • Improving reliability
Mr. Chiang reviewed what happens in Burlingame when the lights go out. He stated that when an outage occurs, PG&E dispatches a “troubleman” to identify and isolate the issue and restore as many customers as possible. A crew will then complete the emergency repairs, conduct any necessary upgrades, and restore the remaining customers. He added that after the incident, the team reviews the outage to identify near-term system improvement projects. He noted that PG&E also reviews trends on a weekly, monthly, and annual basis to identify near, medium, and long-term system improvement projects.
Mr. Chiang next reviewed types of outages. He noted that when reviewing outage data, PG&E differentiates between the types of outages to help identify trends and focus efforts • Momentary outages – last less than five minutes. A patrol is not usually conducted, and the cause is often not identified.
• Sustained outages –any interruption not classified as part of a momentary event; that is, any interruption that lasts more than five minutes.
• Planned outages – allow for safe work on the circuit. Customers are notified in advance. Reasons might include system upgrades, maintenance, or work requested by a third party. • Unplanned outages – when an emergency condition needs to be addressed to restore customers and/or help ensure public safety.
He added that to understand trends and inform future maintenance and construction work, PG&E’s reviews largely focus on sustained and unplanned outages.
Mr. Chiang reviewed a map showing the electric circuits that serve Burlingame. He noted that customers in Burlingame generally get their power from 17 circuits coming from five substations. He added that most customers in Burlingame are energized by circuits out of the Burlingame, San Mateo, or Millbrae substations.
Mr. Chiang stated that Burlingame experienced an increase in the number and duration of sustained and unplanned outages in 2021 compared to the three-year average. He noted that one of the indicators that PG&E uses to examine customer experiences is the average interruption frequency index. This index shows the average number of outages per customer in a particular area.
Mr. Chiang stated that customers in Burlingame experienced several long duration outages during the major storm events in October and December 2021.
Mr. Chiang discussed the 2021 outage causes and mitigations. He explained that customers on the San Mateo 2102 circuit experienced a notable increase in equipment failure from electric flashovers last year. He stated that PG&E is mitigating this issue by including the circuit in an insulator washing program to reduce the risk of flashover. Additionally, PG&E is installing three new switches and reclosers in strategic locations to help minimize the number of customers impacted and duration of outages.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
3 Mr. Chiang noted that the average customer on the San Mateo 2102 circuit experienced 3.9 sustained and unplanned outages in 2021. He explained that this is a large increase from 2018, when the average was 1.2.
Mr. Chiang next reviewed the 2021 outages connected with the Burlingame 2101 circuit. He explained that trends on the Burlingame 2101 were not as clear. He stated that about a third of the outages were due to unknown causes. He added that PG&E suspects that these outages were due to overgrown vegetation.
Mr. Chiang reviewed the mitigation plans for the Burlingame 2101 circuit. He stated that PG&E completes annual routine vegetation management around distribution lines per California Public Utilities Commission rules and tariffs. He added that where possible, PG&E works with residents and the City to trim and remove vegetation from the lines.
Councilmember Beach stated that a third of the outages for the San Mateo 2102 and the Burlingame 2101 circuits are the result of equipment failure. Mr. Chiang replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
No one spoke.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked PG&E for the information. He discussed how PG&E’s responsiveness and reliability have improved over the past 15 years. He thanked Mr. Chiang for his assistance on the City’s project to underground the utility lines on El Camino Real.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked why it took a couple days to restore the electricity after a recent outage. Additionally, she asked how communication can be improved to residents who are suffering from outages for several days.
Mr. Chiang stated that PG&E is improving its communication capabilities by alerting customers that sign up for notifications via text message and email.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that the residents she had heard from were signed up to receive PG&E notifications. However, she explained they wouldn’t hear from PG&E for hours.
Mayor Ortiz discussed the frustration of trying to run a business when there are long outages. He explained that PG&E’s estimates of when power would be back on were wrong, and it created an issue for businesses.
He asked that PG&E work on this issue.
Mr. Chiang noted that the storm in October 2021 was focused on San Mateo County. He explained that at its peak, there were 44,000 addresses out of service in the county. He added that PG&E had to bring in assistance from San Diego to reconnect all the addresses.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
4 Councilmember Colson thanked PG&E for the work they are doing to harden the grid on 10,000 miles of vulnerable lines in high-risk areas for wildfire.
Councilmember Colson stated that she heard that businesses are experiencing a long lag time between requesting a hook up and obtaining it. She asked that PG&E work with the City to assist new businesses in getting connected quicker.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran discussed the City’s wastewater treatment plant that needs to run 24/7.
She voiced concern about how outages affect the plant’s operations and asked PG&E to work directly with them. Mr. Chiang stated that he has given his number to the plant, and they call him directly when there are issues.
Mayor Ortiz thanked PG&E for their presentation and for answering the Council’s questions.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Sandra Lang thanked the Council for the presentation on the Broadway Grade Separation. She discussed the Vision Zero Policy and thought it was worth consideration.
8. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Ortiz asked if anyone on Council or members of the public would like to remove an item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was grateful to Councilmember O’Brien Keighran for her work making Burlingame an “Age Friendly City.” He asked why the Council was voting on her travel to the conference.
City Manager Goldman stated that the City’s purchasing policy requires that all travel out-of-state be approved by Council (except for travel to Nevada).
Vice Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt items 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
Councilmember Colson made a motion to adopt item 8e; seconded by Vice Mayor Brownrigg. The motion passed by roll call vote, 4-0-1. (Councilmember O’Brien Keighran abstained as the item allowed her to travel for an out-of-state conference.)
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE JANUARY 29, 2022
GOAL SETTING SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested approval of the City Council Meeting Minutes for the January 29, 2022 Goal Setting Session.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
5 b. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO CONTINUE CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMISSION MEETINGS REMOTELY DUE TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS
FOR THE PUBLIC
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council adopt Resolution Number 012-2022.
c. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT JAIL
INTERIOR REMODEL BY SOUTHWEST CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, CITY PROJECT NO. 85370/85470
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 013-2022.
d. APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2021
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council approval of the quarterly investment report for the period ending December 31, 2021.
e. APPROVAL OF COUNCILMEMBER O’BRIEN’S OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL TO ATTEND
THE AMERICAN SOCIETY ON AGING ANNUAL CONFERENCE
City Manager Goldman requested Council approve of Councilmember O’Brien’s out-of-state travel to attend the American Society on Aging Annual Conference.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings.
10. STAFF REPORTS
a. ADOPTION OF A REOSLUTION ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME’S
OUTDOOR FLAGPOLE DISPLAY POLICY
ACA Spansail stated that the proposed policy governs the use of City owned outdoor flagpoles. He explained that the policy provides direction to staff for the care and maintenance of flags including Federal, State, and City flags. He added that the policy also incorporates Federal and State policy on flag care.
ACA Spansail stated that the policy includes a mechanism for the Council to request commemorative or ceremonial flags be flown on City owned flagpoles.
ACA Spansail stated that the Council asked for this policy to be created after a special meeting was held to allow for the City to fly the Progress Pride flag on the City Hall flagpole.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
6 ACA Spansail stated that the proposed policy explicitly states that the City’s flagpoles are not a public forum for free speech and may only express the City Council’s official sentiments and thus the City’s own speech.
He explained that under the Government Speech doctrine, a city may advance its own speech without requiring viewpoint neutrality when the city itself is the speaker. This is allowable as long as the speech does not communicate a religious preference or violate a separate constitutional provision.
ACA Spansail explained that this protection exists so long as the City is exercising its own right of expression and is not relaying the message of a distinct third party. The proposed policy’s guidelines and procedures ensure that the City flagpoles never become a public forum for third- party expressions and only convey the City Council’s official government speech.
ACA Spansail stated that for any ceremonial or commemorative flag to be flown, it must first be requested by a sitting Councilmember during a regularly scheduled Council meeting. He explained that a vote would then be taken at a later Council meeting.
Mayor Ortiz asked if Councilmembers would need to request to fly a ceremonial or commemorative flag under future agenda items. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. He noted that the policy didn’t require a Councilmember to second the request, but this could be added.
Councilmember Colson discussed the flagpoles on Burlingame Avenue attached to the parking meters. She noted that on certain Federal holidays like President’s Day, the Boy Scouts install American flags in these flagpoles. She asked if this policy covers those flagpoles. City Manager Goldman noted that DBID handles the parking meter flagpoles on Burlingame Avenue, and the Boy Scouts handle the flagpoles on Broadway.
She added that she believed the proposed policy only covers the flagpoles in front of City Hall and the Library.
Councilmember Colson discussed the potential for DBID to decide to fly ceremonial flags without first consulting with the City. She suggested that the City work with DBID each year to determine which flags should be flown and on what days.
Councilmember Colson noted that it isn’t always clear to residents which flagpoles the City has control over.
She asked if she was correct that the proposed policy only covers City owned flagpoles. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Colson discussed the condition of the flag in front of the train station. She noted that this flag is not under the City’s purview and instead she believed it to be within the Transportation Authority’s control. She asked Councilmember Beach to work with the Transportation Authority to make sure that flag gets replaced when necessary. City Manager Goldman noted that she believed this flag was not under the Transportation Authority’s control but rather Caltrain’s authority.
ACA Spansail stated that the proposed policy can be amended to state specifically which flagpoles the policy governs.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
7 City Manager Goldman stated that the DBID and Boy Scouts only fly American flags in the parking meter flag pole holders, and this is done four to five times a year.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg thanked ACA Spansail for his work on this policy.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought it was a big deal for any government to initiate speech. He noted that he was proud that the City flew the Progress Pride flag. However, he explained that he thought that Council should have a high standard for flying ceremonial or commemorative flags. He asked if his colleagues would be okay with amending the policy to say that four positive votes are needed to fly a ceremonial or commemorative flag.
Mayor Ortiz opened this item up to public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Ortiz stated that he was intrigued by Vice Mayor Brownrigg’s suggestion. He added that he would want the initial request to fly a flag to require a second to move forward.
Councilmember Colson stated that she would hope that for the Council to approve a ceremonial or commemorative flag, that it would be a unanimous decision. Therefore, she explained that she would not have a problem requiring four yes votes.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she agreed with her colleagues regarding four affirmative votes. She explained that she thought that the City should make it clear which holidays the American flag is to be installed on Broadway and Burlingame Avenue. She noted that there has been confusion from residents over what holidays the flags are put up and who is responsible for their installation.
Councilmember Beach thanked ACA Spansail for his work on this policy. She added that she supported the 4/5ths majority and Mayor Ortiz’s requirement for a second to the motion to agendize flying a specific commemorative or ceremonial flag.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 014-2022 with the following amendments:
• Requiring a second on the initial request to agendize a discussion on flying a commemorative or ceremonial flag
• Requiring four affirmative votes to approve flying a commemorative or ceremonial flag
The motion was seconded by Mayor Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
b. AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER (ALPR) DISCUSSION
Police Chief Matteucci stated that this item was originally discussed at the January 18, 2022, City Council meeting. He explained that the discussion focused on the logistics of ALPRs and the pros and cons of utilizing this technology. He noted that some of the benefits of ALPRs are locating and apprehending
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
8 wanted individuals, locating stolen vehicles, and assisting with criminal investigations. He added that some of the negatives were privacy issues and potential data breaches.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that at the January 18 meeting, Council asked that staff gather additional information including input from other San Mateo County cities that utilize ALPRs. He noted that 14 cities in the county utilize ALPRs. He stated that the number of ALPRs in each of the 14 cities ranges from one to
52. He explained that three of the cities only utilize mobile ALPRs, which are installed on police vehicles.
He added that the cities that use fixed ALPRs place them at major entrances to the city and in high traffic areas.
Police Chief Matteucci reviewed how long the different cities retain the ALPR data. He stated that it is a pretty even split in San Mateo County between keeping the data for 30 days or keeping it for a year. He discussed the different data sharing policies of the 14 cities:
• By request only
• Only within San Mateo County
• Northern California Regional Intelligence Center
Police Chief Matteucci stated that his biggest takeaway is that the other police chiefs expressed overwhelming support for purchasing ALPRs.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked which cities don’t use ALPRs. Police Chief Matteucci stated that he would get back to Council with this information off-line.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if the neighboring cities have ALPRs. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach thanked the Police Chief for the information about how other cities are utilizing ALPRs. However, she noted that she was interested in getting more information about privacy concerns.
She stated that she wanted more information on best practices for vetting ALPR policies. She added that she also wanted to better understand if the City should have additional noticing requirements when a Council item involves privacy concerns. She listed other items she wanted more information about including retention policies and the pros and cons of keeping data for longer periods of time.
City Attorney Guina stated that if the Council wants to have additional analysis brought back, the Council can direct staff on what type of data they would like collected on this matter.
Mayor Ortiz opened the item up for public comment.
Jennifer Pfaff discussed the great work the Police are doing in her neighborhood to slow traffic down. She added that she thought ALPRs would be a good idea for Burlingame. She asked if the data is also used to identify speeders.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
9 Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that primarily ALPRs aren’t used for traffic violations.
Mayor Ortiz stated that every law enforcement activity restricts private rights. He added that people have learned to accept it, and he believed ALPRs would be very helpful. He explained that he understood it would infringe on an individual’s privacy and thought that Council should be strict about how the data is used.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if the Police Chief received any negative feedback about ALPRs.
Police Chief Matteucci replied in the negative.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked about the average length of time that cities kept their data. Police Chief Matteucci stated that most of the cities keep it for only 30 days. He noted that those that keep it a year are the cities who share it with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she thought there were a lot more benefits to utilizing ALPRs than negatives. She added that she thought if the City goes forward with purchasing ALPRs, the Council should conduct an annual review of their effectiveness.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if the City agrees to ALPRs, it is a step towards the creation of a surveillance state. He emphasized his appreciation for Police Chief Matteucci’s hard work to train the officers on de-escalation and handling biases. He explained that while he doesn’t believe the City’s police would misuse the cameras, he still had concerns. He gave an example of a person of color borrowing a friend’s car where the friend has a warrant out for his arrest. He explained that he was concerned about the potential for a bad situation if the driver is pulled over.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg stated that if this item came back, he would like to hear from civil rights groups and other non-governmental organizations about the benefits and negatives of ALPRs. He added that he would also like to hear from them about how best to set up a policy to protect individual rights. He stated that he wants to minimize the number of interactions between armed police and people of color. He explained that this is because the country has a horrible record of those interactions.
Councilmember Beach stated that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg. She explained that if this item came back for further discussion, she would like to hear from outside organizations about how best to set up a vetting process for reviewing ALPR policies and how to better notify the public that the Council is considering purchasing ALPRs.
Councilmember Colson stated that if someone has a warrant out for their arrest, she does want the police to pull that person over and investigate why they are in the city.
Burlingame City Council February 22, 2022
Approved Minutes
10 Councilmember Colson stated that she has heard from members of the community and businesses that they want the police to install ALPRs. She added that she agreed with Vice Mayor Brownrigg and Councilmember Beach that the City needs to thoroughly review an ALPR policy prior to agreeing to purchase this technology.
Mayor Ortiz stated that it seemed like most of his colleagues would like to schedule further discussions on this topic. The Council agreed.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked that when the next discussion is scheduled, it be placed in the eNews to alert the community.
11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITY REPORTS
There were no Council committee and activity reports.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The agendas, packets, and meeting minutes for the Planning Commission, Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, Beautification Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, and Library Board of Trustees are available online at www.burlingame.org.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk