1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on October 16, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in person and via Zoom at 7:02 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Len Materman.
3. ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Beach, Brownrigg, Colson, Ortiz, Stevenson MEMBERS ABSENT: None
4. REQUEST FOR AB 2249 REMOTE PARTICIPATION
There were no requests.
5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
a. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 CITY DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES: HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR MARIA SAGUISAG-SID, CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GUINA, TIMOTHY L. DAVIS ATTORNEY,
FINANCE DIRECTOR HELEN YU-SCOTT
EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATIONS: AFSCME AND TEAMSTERS 856
City Attorney Guina stated that direction was given, but no reportable action was taken.
6. UPCOMING EVENTS
Mayor Brownrigg reviewed upcoming events in the city.
2 7. PRESENTATIONS
a. ONESHORELINE PRESENTATION
OneShoreline CEO Materman stated that San Mateo County completed a vulnerability study in 2018. He explained that San Mateo County had a long-standing flood district developed by State legislation. He noted that the district only covered about 10% of the County land, and it was not set up to deal with substantial climate risk. He added that climate change is a transformative challenge that the County and cities are not well-positioned to address individually.
Mr. Materman explained that State legislation established OneShoreline as a special district on January 1, 2020. He stated that it is the first independent government agency in California to plan and build regional resilience related to flooding, sea level rise, coastal erosion, stormwater, and water supply; and support recreation and the environment.
The City experienced some technical difficulties with the hybrid technology at this point in the discussion.
Mr. Materman discussed the winter storms that the Bay Area experienced in 2022-2023.
Vice Mayor Colson talked about the work that OneShoreline’s staff accomplished. She discussed the importance of a comprehensive plan and OneShoreline’s ability to obtain grants. She asked Mr. Materman to discuss how the agency is funding itself.
Mr. Materman stated that OneShoreline was created by State legislation but wasn’t funded. He noted that each of the cities in the county, and the County, contributed to the three-year startup costs associated with OneShoreline operations. He added that OneShoreline was able to extend the original three-year period for another four-years by obtaining funding from the State and County. He added that OneShoreline is looking at different strategies including potentially going to the voters for future funding.
The City was able to bring the hybrid technology back online.
Mr. Materman reviewed OneShoreline’s priorities:
• Planning – work with cities on general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances to build private and public site-specific resilience that contributes to regional resilience • Storms – alert people to, and reduce the impacts of, climate-driven atmospheric rivers • Projects – build aligned climate resilience across jurisdictions complemented by land use that promotes resilience to future conditions
• Sustainability of the effort – develop ongoing funding streams, including from private sector beneficiaries, and have all sectors see climate resilience as their issue
Mr. Materman stated that long-term resilience to future conditions requires that:
• Local leaders champion long-term resilience
3 • Public infrastructure and private developments are integrated into a regional protection and enhancement project through land use plans and zoning
Mr. Materman discussed OneShoreline’s project with Millbrae and Burlingame and the Burlingame Zoning Ordinance:
• The project’s coast protection objective is to keep the Bay shoreline, creeks, and lagoons in the area from overtopping when the Bay water level equals FEMA’s Base Flood Elevation plus six feet • In 2022, Burlingame became one of the first Bay Area cities to incorporate sea level rise into its zoning ordinance. He noted that the key development requirements relate to shoreline protection infrastructure, buffer zone, elevations, stormwater capture/drainage, and groundwater.
Mr. Materman stated that San Francisco is planning its bayside protection project for SFO. He explained that the EIR was just completed, and they are beginning the NEPA document. He added that OneShoreline’s projects connect on the north and south side of the SFO project.
Mr. Materman discussed the need for the project in Millbrae and Burlingame. He explained that it would provide protection to the areas on the shoreline that have very little protection in terms of a levy system or marsh. He added that the project would also help provide public access and recreation by completing the Bay Trail.
Mr. Materman stated that OneShoreline supported a grant application from the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Foundation to restore the area near the mouth of Mills Creek.
Mr. Materman reviewed the history of the Millbrae and Burlingame project:
• 2019 – the City produced a report on sea level rise vulnerability • 2020 – Millbrae produced a similar report
• 2022 – OneShoreline committed $4 million to jump start the project • Completed since Summer of 2022
o LiDAR flyover to update topography and bathymetry
o Environmental constraints analysis
o Coastal hazards report
o Inland flood hazards report
o Phase 1 geotechnical borings
o Alternatives feasibility analysis
Mr. Materman reviewed the Millbrae and Burlingame project objectives:
• Protect areas along the Bay shoreline, and nearby creeks and lagoons, against current coastal hazards and future sea level rise as defined by OneShoreline’s Bay Protection Standard • Enhance shoreline access, recreation, and trails
• Promote healthy and sustainable ecosystems proximate to the Bay shoreline
Mr. Materman reviewed the project’s coast protection benefits:
4 • Protects properties against higher Bay water levels from sea level rise, storm surge, and waves • Keeps the higher Bay water levels from creeks, which helps protect creekside properties • Completes regional studies to inform future work and each city’s Storm Drain Master Plan
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the potential flooding of SFO. Mr. Materman replied that SFO needs their project to go forward in order to prevent flooding and assist the County.
Mr. Materman reviewed the proposed project’s features:
• Lagoon barrier with habitat and a potential trail
• Lagoon barrier extension south to protect San Mateo (optional) • Lagoon tide gates/pump station
• Trails, beaches, habitat, levees, walls, bridges, and tide gates/pump stations
Councilmember Beach asked if the lagoon barrier was considered a nature-based solution. Mr. Materman replied that the barrier is a structure that would be built but that it would contain natural components.
Mr. Materman reviewed the potential project’s impacts that OneShoreline proposes to analyze in the EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Air quality
• Biological resources
• Cultural resources
• Energy
• Geology and soils
• Greenhouse gas emissions
• Hazards and hazardous materials
• Hydrology and water quality
• Land use and planning
• Noise
• Public services
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal/cultural resources
• Utilities and service systems
• Wildfire
He noted that the EIR will analyze the topics above, and potentially others, and propose mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts determined to be significant.
Mr. Materman noted that special attention will be given to: lagoon water quality, fish migration and birds, adaptability to future conditions, and regional context.
Mr. Materman reviewed next steps:
5 • November 2023 – EIR scoping ends
• Spring 2024 – 30% conceptual design, develop draft EIR, and public outreach • Fall 2024 – complete LEDPA analysis and complete draft EIR
He noted that after these steps, the project is unfunded. He stated that OneShoreline will be working with the City to obtain grants and other sources of funding.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked Vice Mayor Colson for her service on the board at OneShoreline.
Vice Mayor Colson thanked OneShoreline for their efforts on this matter. She noted that Mr. Materman has assisted the City of Sausalito and others on their sea level rise. She discussed the importance of collaboration on this matter and gathering opinions from those outside the county.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Stevenson thanked OneShoreline for their work.
b. BEAUTIFICATION AWARDS
Beautification Commissioner Sean Chu presented the Beautification Commission’s annual commercial and residential landscaping awards to Mills Peninsula Medical Center and 5 Valdivia Court, respectively.
Congratulations to both recipients.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested expanding the Beautification Commission landscaping awards to include multi-residential buildings and apartment units. Mr. Chu replied that the Beautification Commission would be discussing this at a future meeting.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. No items were removed.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 2, 2023 CLOSED SESSION
6 City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the October 2, 2023 Closed Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE OCTOBER 2, 2023 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the October 2, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 25.62 AND 25.108 OF TITLE 25 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES, CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15061(b)(3)
City Attorney Guina requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2019.
d. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 13.36.010 AND 13.36.020 OF THE
BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REMOVE A PARKING RESTRICTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE BETWEEN CARMELITA AVENUE AND SANCHEZ AVENUE; AND ESTABLISH A
PARKING RESTRICTION ON THE EAST SIDE OF CALIFORNIA DRIVE BETWEEN CARMELITA AVENUE AND OAK GROVE AVENUE THAT THERE WILL BE “NO PARKING” BETWEEN 12:30 A.M. AND 6:00 A.M. ; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15061(b)(3)
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Ordinance Number 2020.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME STATION PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT BY FBD VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 86240
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution Number 131-2023.
f. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
g. OPEN NOMINATION PERIOD TO FILL TWO VACANCIES ON THE TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING
COMMISSION
City Manager Goldman requested Council open the nomination period to fill two vacancies on the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
7 There were no public hearings.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC HEARING DATE OF DECEMBER 4, 2023 REGARDING SOLID WASTE RATES FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2024-2028
Finance Director Yu-Scott stated that the City contracted with R3 Consulting Group last fall to conduct a comprehensive solid waste rate study for the City.
R3 President Garth Schultz stated that staff is asking Council to adopt a resolution establishing a public hearing date of December 4, 2023, regarding solid waste rates for 2024 through 2028. He noted that new rates would be effective:
• January 1, 2024
• January 1, 2025
• January 1, 2026
• January 1, 2027
• January 1, 2028
He stated that the City needs to send out a notice 45 days prior to the public hearing to all ratepayers.
Mr. Schultz reviewed the background of the City’s solid waste and recycling services:
• Member of SBWMA
• City holds a franchise agreement for solid waste collection with Recology • Post-collection processing, recycling, composting, and disposal through Shoreway facility, owned by SBWMA
• City approves solid waste rates to cover costs for collection, post-collection, SBWMA programs, and City programs
• City may adopt up to five-years of rates
• Rates were last increased by 5% March 2022 – and these rates are still in effect in 2023 • Current rate revenues are not projected to cover cost of services in 2023 and 2024 • Costs for Recology collection services are increasing (labor, fuel, inflation) • Costs for post-collection at Shoreway are increasing (new operating agreement, unique market conditions, inflation)
• Rates need to be adjusted to cover the cost of providing solid waste services in future • R3 forecasted costs and rate revenue needs from 2024 through 2028
Mr. Schultz discussed R3’s analysis of the City’s solid waste rates:
• Collection costs are 50% of rate revenues
o Annual adjustments per franchise agreement
o Reviewed by SBWMA staff and approved by Board on September 28, 2023
8 o Increasing by 6.76% in 2024
o R3 forecasts increases of 4% per year 2025 through 2028
• Shoreway costs are 35% of rate revenues
o Set by SBWMA Board, includes funding of SBWMA programs o Costs projected to increase by 25% in 2024 due to new operating agreement o SBWMA Board approved use of rate stabilization reserves on September 28, 2023 – reduced ratepayer revenue need, but costs are still increasing
o Future capital investment needs still anticipated
o R3 forecasts increases of 10% in 2025 and 7% in 2026 through 2028
• City costs are 15% of rate revenues
o Set by franchise agreement
o Landfill post-closure maintenance
o Street sweeping
o Steam cleaning of public solid waste containers
o Compliance with State laws
o Management and administration of franchise agreement
o Use of government property
o Payment for impacts to pavement
• City solid waste and landfill funds
o Funded via solid waste rates
o Historically used to fund operational shortfalls
o Fund balances are healthy
o Recommending use of reserves to offset necessary rate increases in 2024, 2025, and 2026
Mr. Schultz stated that staff is seeking Council feedback about 20-gallon garbage rates. He stated that this service was discontinued in 2012. However, 655 customers previously subscribed were allowed to keep 20- gallon service, at prior rates. He explained that according to Recology, the 20-gallon rate does not cover the cost of service. He stated that for 2024, R3’s recommendation is to re-introduce 20-gallon garbage bins at a cost of 90% of the 32-gallon rate.
Mr. Schultz stated that most residential rate payers who subscribe to the 32-gallon containers would see rate increases on a monthly basis of three dollars per year. He noted that even after adjustments, the 2024 rates for the City would be amongst the lowest in the county.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that SBWMA works hard to make sure rates stay competitive and low. He added that they denied $830,000 worth of claims from Recology because SBWMA didn’t believe they were owed that. He discussed the programs that SBWMA runs including public education and lobbying to reduce expenses at the State legislation level.
9 Councilmember Ortiz asked about the rationale for allowing the 655 customers to keep the 20-gallon service.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that the reason a low price was set for the 20-gallon bins was to encourage recycling. However, he stated that this is no longer needed, and if the City was to bring back the 20-gallon containers, residents would need to cover the cost.
Councilmember Stevenson asked about SBWMA’s public education on solid waste rates. Mr. Schultz replied that SBWMA doesn’t do education around rates themselves as these are set by each local agency.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 132-2023 and make the 20-gallon rate 90% of the 32-gallon rate; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
b. DISCUSSION OF GAS LEAF BLOWERS
Sustainability Program Manager Sigalle Michael discussed the City’s existing leaf blower ordinance:
• Commercial blowers can be used one day per week, per area, with an extra day for R3 and R4 buildings
• Residents can use their own leaf blowers on the weekends during select hours • No leaf blowers can be used on Mondays and Wednesdays citywide • Fine of $50 for violations
• Commercial blowers must display a sticker issued by Public Works that certifies that the machinery is no louder than 65 decibels
Ms. Michael stated that the City received 31 complaints in the last year that leaf blowers were running on incorrect days. She explained that letters of violation were sent to the homeowners.
Ms. Michael stated that the State adopted AB 1346, which bans the sale of new gas small off-road engines (“SORE”) beginning in January 2024. She explained that one hour of utilizing a gas leaf blower is the equivalent to driving a car for 1,100 miles. She added that the cumulative volume from SORE pollution exceeds that of passenger vehicles. She stated that to assist with AB 1346, the State created the Clean Off- Road Equipment (“CORE”) Incentive Program, which gave funds to professional landscapers to purchase electric leaf blowers. She noted that the program is currently closed for landscape equipment.
Ms. Michael reviewed what other cities are doing regarding leaf blowers:
Gas Leaf Blower Ban Electric Leaf Blower Rebates
Los Altos 1991
Palo Alto 2005 (residential only)
Sonoma 2017
10 Portola Valley 2021
Atherton 2024 $250 per household
Menlo Park 2024
Hillsborough 2024
Calistoga, St. Helena,
Yountsville
2022 $150 for residents and $350 for commercial
San Mateo Commercial rebate of 75% of cost (up to
$500) and residential rebate of 50% of cost
(up to $100)
Redwood City Commercial rebate up to $300 and
residential rebate up to $150 (for leaf
blowers and other electric yard equipment)
Napa Commercial rebate up to $1,000
San Anselmo 2023 – residential/municipal and
2024- commercial
50% discount; up to $150 (turn in gas
equipment)
Ms. Michael stated that she reviewed costs associated with electric leaf blowers. She noted that commercial leaf blowers cost approximately $1,100, and residential leaf blowers are $150 to $400. She added that she believes that electric leaf blowers powered by batteries last 20 to 40 minutes at a time.
Ms. Michael discussed the benefits and challenges of municipal electric equipment:
• Benefits
o Quieter and healthier
o Electric utility cart and ride-on mower have met expectations and have performed well for years
• Challenges
o Smaller, hand-held pieces of equipment are significantly more expensive, require more labor, and have limitations
o Battery operated equipment shorted out during rain, requiring significant repair o Equipment is heavier and bulkier – staff concerned about weight impact
Ms. Michael reviewed the challenges of electric leaf blowers:
• Upfront costs are higher with battery (in long term – gas savings are significant) • Equity considerations
• Battery life
• Still makes some noise and spreads dust
• Code enforcement
• Outreach to landscapers
• More labor and limiting for large scale and commercial projects
Ms. Michael stated that staff recommends that Council consider the following:
11 • Removal of the noise decibel requirement from the ordinance • Maintenance of the days of the week leaf blower restrictions • Exemption of the City of Burlingame municipal operations from the day of the week restrictions when using electric equipment
• Consideration of aligning with the State’s restriction on gas leaf blowers by banning the use of gas leaf blowers in 2025 or other future date
• Consideration of offering a rebate for the purchase of an electric leaf blower - one option is to reallocate $5,000 from the Lawn Be Gone program for electric leaf blowers
Vice Mayor Colson asked if individuals have to be a resident to get a rebate. Ms. Michael replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if commercial landscapers would have to be a registered business in the City to get a rebate. Ms. Michael replied that other cities require the business to have a business license in the city to receive a rebate.
Councilmember Stevenson asked about the total cost of ownership for both landscapers and residents regarding electric leaf blowers. Ms. Michael stated that she would need to get back to Council with this information.
Councilmember Beach discussed Burlingame’s air quality and that it is consistently lower than neighboring communities. She asked if there was any data on why the City’s air quality is lower. Ms. Michael replied that she would reach out to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to get more information.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Former Mayor Nagel voiced support for banning gas leaf blowers with the ban starting on July 1, 2024. She also stated that she liked maintaining days of the week bans on leaf blowers and offering rebates.
Mayor Brownrigg asked former Mayor Nagel if she thought the fine should be levied against the landscaper or the homeowner. Former Mayor Nagel replied that the homeowner should be responsible.
Doug Bojack voiced support for banning gas leaf blowers. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he is in favor of the following:
• Keeping the day restrictions
• Removal of noise decibel requirement
• Exempting the City from the day restrictions when utilizing electric equipment • Banning gas leaf blowers
12 • Offering a rebate for residents and businesses that have a business license in Burlingame
Councilmember Stevenson stated that he was in favor of the following:
• Keeping the day restrictions
• Removal of noise decibel requirements
• Rebate program
• Banning gas leaf blowers
He added that he would like to hear from the Parks and Recreation Department about how exempting municipal operations from the day restrictions when utilizing electric equipment would help and why it was necessary.
Mayor Brownrigg asked his colleagues who should be fined if there is a violation of the ordinance—the property owner or the landscaper.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that he believed it was the homeowner’s responsibility.
Councilmember Ortiz concurred with Councilmember Stevenson.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of the following:
• Keeping the day restrictions
• Removal of noise decibel requirements
• Banning gas leaf blowers
She noted that she was reluctant to make exceptions for the City on the day restrictions. She added that she wanted to lean into assisting small landscaping businesses fund the purchase of electric leaf blowers.
She noted that she was more inclined to help the small business owners over residents. She voiced concern about the cost of batteries and suggested a battery swap program.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of starting the ban of gas leaf blowers on July 1, 2024, in order to conduct extensive public outreach.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she believed the system needed to be simple in order to promote participation. She discussed how she purchased electric equipment for her landscapers to use when working on her yard. She added that she was in support of exempting municipal operations from the day of the week restrictions.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she wasn’t in favor of fines. She suggested initiating the ban of gas leaf blowers on July 1, 2024, and then revisiting the need for fines a year later.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that PCE has some surplus funds, and one of the recommendations is to give cities an allocation that could be utilized for a rebate program. She noted that this might not manifest for
13 another year, but it could assist with such a program. She added that she was okay with moving $5,000 from the Lawn Be Gone program for a rebate program.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he was in favor of banning gas leaf blowers. He added that he would be in favor of initiating the ban earlier than July 1, 2024. He noted that he was also in favor of fining homeowners for violations.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the exemption for municipal operations only applied to electric equipment. City Manager Goldman replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he supported the exemption for municipal operations.
City Manager Goldman recapped the Council’s discussion. She stated that a consensus was reached on the following:
• Maintaining day of the week restrictions
• Removal of noise decibel requirements
• Banning of gas leaf blowers, which will go into effect on July 1, 2024
City Manager Goldman stated that four Councilmembers were okay with the exemption for municipal operations. She added that three Councilmembers were okay with fines being implemented on homeowners after July 1, 2024. She noted that there was interest in a rebate program.
Mayor Brownrigg asked staff to come up with a rebate program for both commercial and residential users.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought any fines received should be utilized for the rebate program.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked staff for their work on this item.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Vice Mayor Colson asked for the City’s participation in CORA to be agendized. Council agreed.
14. 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.burlingame.org
.
15. ADJOURNMENT
14 Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. in celebration of John Ward’s recent nuptials to May Lum.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk