Burlingame City Council March 7, 2022
Approved Minutes
1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
City Council Study Session Meeting on March 7, 2022
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date via Zoom Webinar at 6:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, O’Brien Keighran, Ortiz MEMBERS ABSENT: None
3. STUDY SESSION
a. DISCUSSION OF MICROMOBILITY SHARING PROGRAMS
Sustainability Coordinator Michael explained that micromobility refers to bicycles, scooters, and other similar vehicles intended for short trips. She defined e-mobility as electric bicycles, scooters, and other small, short-trip electric vehicles.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that Burlingame was an early adopter of LimeBike. LimeBike was one of the first iterations of bike sharing in the Bay Area. She noted that the LimeBike pilot program in Burlingame ran for almost a full year, from 2018 to 2019, until they abruptly removed all of their bicycles from the city. She noted that LimeBike pivoted to scooter sharing in large cities.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael explained that during its run in Burlingame, LimeBike was popular and had a high usage rate. However, she noted the program had its challenges. She explained that LimeBike was a dock-less system, which led to bikes being parked in the middle of sidewalks, streets, and front yards.
She added that minors often rode the bikes without helmets, and bikes were vandalized.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that over the past year, new and improved micromobility sharing programs reemerged in small cities, with better regulations in place. She explained that a micromobility program in Burlingame would support the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goals and Climate Action Plan by offering an alternative transportation option for residents, visitors, and employees.
Burlingame City Council March 7, 2022
Approved Minutes
2 Sustainability Coordinator Michael noted that e-mobility was brought up at the January Goal Setting Session.
She gave an overview of e-mobility in Bay Area cities:
City Operators Approach
San Francisco, Oakland, and San
Jose
E-bikes: Baywheels
Scooters: Lime, Spin, and Link
MTC sponsored
Permit
Fremont Bikes and scooters: Hopr MTC grant
Richmond and Marin E-Bikes: Bolt MTC grant
Berkeley Currently evaluating permit
applications
Permit
Emeryville Scooters: Link, Lime, and Spin Permit
Redwood City No current operators, but Bird
Scooters has shown interest
Permit
San Mateo None Permit
She broke down some of the associated permit details for some of the cities:
City Fees Vehicle Limit
Number
Other Operators
Emeryville $2,500 application fee
$1,000/year renewal
$5,000 permit fee
No limits on
number of vehicles
or operators
Vehicles must be
equipped with
locking mechanism
to lock to a fixed
object and GPS
tracking
Spin Scooters,
Link Scooter,
Lime Scooters, and
BayWheels Bike
Share
Redwood City $2,000 application fee
$0.15/ride fee
$5,000 refundable
repair fee
$99 impoundment fee
Minimum fleet size
of vehicles
Maximum 250
Scooters or 200
bicycles
No limit on vendors
Collects fee per
ride
No current
operators, but Bird
Scooters has
expressed interest
San Mateo $5,000 permit fee City to issue one
permit to one
operator for a
maximum of 500
bikes/e-bikes.
No scooters
Competitive
application
None
Berkeley $1,500 application fee
Minimum of 50
vehicles
Competitive
application
Currently
evaluating permit
Burlingame City Council March 7, 2022
Approved Minutes
3 $15,000 annual
permit fee
$64/per vehicle
Requires inclusion
of adaptive devices
to be self-
balancing; have a
seat; storage to hold
a cane.
applications
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated out that currently, Embassy Suites, Marriott, Double Tree, and Hyatt are part of a bike sharing system along the Bayshore. She noted that the bikes are $15 per hour, and you can ask the hotel staff for a helmet. She added that the hotels have a revenue sharing agreement.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that one of the biggest changes from the earlier iterations of micromobility are the parking and riding controls that cities have undertaken. She explained that once the company gets their permit, they work with City staff to provide parking locations to the public. She highlighted that there are different zones that can be enforced on the vehicles (no-parking, no-ride, reduced- speed, etc.).
She reviewed the pros and cons for e-bikes and scooters:
E-Bikes Scooters
Higher speeds – 20 mph Lower speeds – 15 mph
Less likely to block areas More easily littered
Further distances Shorter distances
Usually ridden on bike lanes/streets Some ride on sidewalks
Sustainability Coordinator Michael posed four key questions:
1. Should the City pursue e-mobility?
2. Is there a vehicle preference?
3. Is there an implementation preference?
4. Other concerns and controls to consider?
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran voiced her concern over e-scooters. She was especially worried about injuries and inquired about who is held liable. City Attorney Guina responded that if the City were to explore permitting options with an e-mobility company, the City would want to negotiate some sort of indemnity. He noted that if someone were to ride an e-scooter on a City street and were to get injured, they could sue and try to name the City, claiming the road contributed to the accident. He continued that the City would try and limit that exposure.
Mayor Ortiz asked if that exposure is the same regardless of if the person was riding a micromobility vehicle or a personal vehicle. City Attorney Guina responded in the affirmative.
Burlingame City Council March 7, 2022
Approved Minutes
4 Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked if it’s possible to ban scooters from sidewalks, citing the danger it brings to the downtown area. City Attorney Guina responded that under the California Vehicle Code, riding an e-scooter on the sidewalk is a violation of State law. He stated that the City could require any e-scooter operator to have clear messaging on the scooter, kiosks, and their website. He noted the City would not have to take any additional action.
Mayor Ortiz stated that the issue would be enforcement.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran asked what the cost of the e-bike docking stations would be.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael responded that the City would determine what the cost is by issuing a Request for Proposals. She added that she would reach out to Marin, Richmond, and Fremont to see what the docking stations cost in their respective programs.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg asked what the City learned from the LimeBike usage. Sustainability Coordinator Michael responded that LimeBike did not give the City any heat-map data. She explained that other cities require that this information be shared with the city. She stated that Emeryville contracts with a company that takes that data and converts it into heat-maps.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg suggested that the City reach out to LimeBike to see about acquiring that data. He thought that a lot of Burlingame users would be first and last miles users. He noted that this would lead to leaving bikes on sidewalks. He added that he liked the idea of docking stations, but worried that it would limit the usage of the bikes.
Councilmember Colson discussed PCE’s program of supplying e-bikes to low-income families. She explained that the data that PCE obtained from the program showed that those families used the bikes to go from their home to the store/school/public transportation. She echoed Vice Mayor Brownrigg’s concern about where the docking stations should be placed. She hoped the City could do some sort of beta test to see if people would actually use e-bikes if given the opportunity.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was excited for the opportunity to bring a micromobility program back to the City. She discussed the benefits of a micromobility program including reducing carbon emissions and freeing up parking spaces. She reviewed the things micromobility operators could do to address her colleagues’ concerns including: geo-fencing vehicles within a 50 to 100-foot set boundary; verifying identity and age of users; indemnifying cities; and providing incentives to park the vehicle in the right area.
Councilmember Beach asked if the City of San Mateo still has their bike-share program. Sustainability Coordinator Michael responded that San Mateo no longer had their program. She added that Bird has been tinkering with their model in order to better serve small cities.
Councilmember Beach stated that she is hopeful a program would work in Burlingame. However, she noted that she wasn’t optimistic that the City could obtain an MTC grant as Burlingame doesn’t have the equity metrics or the ridership to obtain one.
Burlingame City Council March 7, 2022
Approved Minutes
5 Sustainability Coordinator Michael added that ideally there would be a regional micromobility program, but that sort of program seems very slow moving.
Mayor Ortiz asked if geo-fencing shuts down the e-bike’s motor, or completely locks its wheels.
Sustainability Coordinator Michael stated that she was unsure.
Mayor Ortiz opened it the item for public comments.
Bird representative Caroline discussed her company’s operating model. She stated that Bird Scooters has a dock-less model to allow people to ride from place to place without being limited to specific locations. She explained that geo-fencing will stop the scooter when it crosses the set boundary. She noted that the scooter will beep as it gets close to the boundary to warn its user.
Councilmember Beach asked if Bird indemnifies cities. Caroline replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked if Bird informs its users not to ride the scooter on sidewalks. Caroline replied in the affirmative. She stated there is a reminder when a person creates their account to not ride on the sidewalk and to obey all rules and regulations.
A Move San Mateo representative supported expanding e-mobility programs in Burlingame.
Jennifer Pfaff worried about the safety of e-scooters and wanted to know about the rules and regulations for them.
Commute.org representative Emma Shlaes voiced support for micromobility.
Athan Rebelos voiced support for micromobility.
Mayor Ortiz closed public comment.
Councilmember Colson asked about the feasibility of a hybrid model (dock and dock-less). Sustainability Coordinator Michael was unsure if this is an option and told Council she would review what other cities were doing.
Councilmember Beach stated she would like to pursue further conversations about micromobility programs in Burlingame. She explained she believes that a dock-less system would get more use than a docking system. She added that she thought the City should work with Facebook on a micromobility program due to their large workforce. She stated she was open to both bikes and scooters.
Councilmember O’Brien Keighran stated that she does not want to pursue a scooter program. She noted that she was open to e-bikes but is worried about utilizing a dock-less program. She asked staff to reach out to cities who have new programs to see how they are going.
Burlingame City Council March 7, 2022
Approved Minutes
6 Mayor Ortiz stated that the City should pursue both bikes and scooters. He echoed the concern that a docking system would limit usage. He added that if the City went with a docking system, he would like to see multiple docking stations in order to encourage usage.
Councilmember Colson preferred that staff look at the use of e-bikes first, then look at scooters at a later date. She stated that she preferred a docking system.
Vice Mayor Brownrigg voiced support for a docking system. He asked that if this moves forward that staff ensure that the City is able to collect data on usage. He echoed Councilmember Colson and Councilmember O’Brien Keighran’s concerns about scooters and stated that he would support starting with bikes.
Mayor Ortiz thanked staff for the presentation.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Ortiz adjourned the meeting at 6:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk