San Bruno City Council
January 10, 2023

STAFF
UPDATE
ON
THE
CITY’S RESPONSE
TO
LATE
2022 / EARLY
2023
WINTER
STORMS
Presented to the San Bruno City Council on January 10, 2023 Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager
Matt Lee, Public Works Director

• Provide Background for Storm Preparation
• City Response to Late 2022 / Early 2023 Storm and Impacts  Operational Field Staff Assigned to Storm Response
 EOC Activated
• Public Messaging and Emergency Alerts
• Overview with Photos of Storm Event
 Flooding
 Landslides
 Fallen Trees
 Storm Drain System Infrastructure
• Ongoing Processes and Next Steps
• Questions

AGENDA AND OBJECTIVE
2 • Seasonal Storm Preparation Began in
October/November 2022
 Trash and Debris Removal
 Inspection/Cleaning of Catch Basin Grates
& Trash Capture Devices
 Watch for Leaf Accumulation
 Order Sandbag Supplies

BACKGROUND FOR STORM PREPARATION
3 • Monitor Weather During Storm Season
• Preparation for December 31, 2022 and Subsequent Storms in January 2023  Public Works and Community Services Teams
Ensured On-Call Staff Schedule to Address Storm Issues  Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Briefings

• Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Activated
 San Mateo County EOC Assisted with County
Resources for Local Temporary Housing
Assistance
• Monitored Situation Status
• Supported Field Staff with Logistical (Supplies
and Other) Needs
• Prepared for Temporary Evacuation Center (TEP)
 Worked with PG&E to Obtain Charging Kits
• Issued Messaging to the General Public
CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
4 • Increased Sandbag Production to Provide to San Bruno Community CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
5  SMC Alert
Registration
 Sandbag
Availability
 Important Contact
Number and
Resources
 Safety Tips and
Road Closures
 Recology Service
Uninterrupted
CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
6 • Preparedness Messaging to the General Public
via Social Media
CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
7 • Dedicated Homepage Message
 Important Contact Phone Numbers
& Resources
• Coordinated Proactive Messaging Should
Colma Creek Meet Flooding Criteria
• Used Messaging Board for Potential
Flood Area near 7th Ave. to Alert
Residents
• Issued SMC Alert to Area of Potential
Flooding near 7th Ave.

CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
• Overall
Damage
Assessment
Map (14)
8 14
2 1
10 12
7 9 6
3 85
13 4
11 CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
9 • Storm Response to Flooding

CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
10 • Storm Response to Various Landslides and Application of Visqueen (plastic sheeting)

CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
11 • Storm Response to Fallen Trees

CITY RESPONSE TO LATE 2022 / EARLY 2023 STORM
12 • Storm Response to Storm Drain System Infrastructure

13 • Still in the Early Phase of Response and Assessment • Continue Storm Response with Pending Storms in the Next Days/Weeks • Continue Damage Assessment to Land and Infrastructure • Continue to Monitor Known Areas of Interest

ONGOING PROCESSES AND NEXT STEPS

STAY CONNECTED
14 QUESTIONS?
15 January 10, 2023
San Bruno City Council Update
San Mateo County Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency District Dave Pine, Board Chair Len Materman, CEO
[email protected]
Recent studies – and recent experience with flooding and erosion – point to our county’s substantial vulnerability to the water-related impacts of climate change.

Climate change is a transformative challenge the County and cities were not well-positioned to address individually.

A long
-
standing Flood Control
District collected taxes and
worked in 8% of the county,
along 10% Bay shoreline, and
none of the Pacific coastline
State legislation established OneShoreline on January 1, 2020 as the first independent government agency in CA to build regional resilience to the water-related impacts of climate change – flooding, SLR, coastal erosion, stormwater, water retention –and enhance recreation and the environment.

OneShoreline takes a holistic approach to:

GEOGRAPHYTHREATS OBJECTIVES

OneShoreline activities between January 2020 – December 2022 • Set up new independent government agency
• Completed 1st construction project
• Developed new multi-jurisdictional projects
• Developed first in Bay Area zoning ordinance focused on future climate conditions • Worked with cities and developers on new proposals
• Stretched our operational funding until at least the end of 2026 OneShoreline priorities through June 2024
• Work with cities on key planning documents, and with developers, to build resilience today
• Advance multi-jurisdictional projects that connect and align substantial protection for neighboring jurisdictions
• Further the countywide Flood Early Warning System and create multi-jurisdictional Emergency Action Plans
• Develop long-term, stable funding to build regional resilience to multiple climate risks
• Ensure private sector beneficiaries contribute to project financing • Advocate for environmental permits that match this moment Shoreline areas with large projects
led by, or in discussion with, OneShoreline
Millbrae and Burlingame Shoreline Area Protection and Enhancement Project Colma Creek Flood Zone
San Bruno Creek
Flood Zone
Property taxes in San Bruno contribute to two
zones created decades ago by San Mateo County
that are now administered by OneShoreline.

Millbrae and Burlingame Shoreline Area Protection and Enhancement Project In that stretch, the Creek winds through major infrastructure owned by, or in the jurisdiction of, multiple agencies, which has made solving the chronic flooding difficult.

San Bruno’s Belle Air neighborhood is located along the last mile of San Bruno Creek before it drains into San Francisco Bay.

Previous studies of this area

Millbrae and Burlingame Shoreline Area Protection and Enhancement Project Working with County, San Bruno, and Sup. Pine’s staff, OneShoreline:

1. Repaired the San Bruno Creek Tide Gate in February 2022 Before: one of the three detached
flap gates on the Tide Gate
After: new flap gates

2. Repaired, is replacing, and is providing backup electricity for, motors in the Walnut & Angus Pump Stations

3. Is working with Caltrans to identify
solutions, including backflow valve
in a Caltrans storm drain outfall
Near-term solutions to flooding in the Belle Air neighborhood The tide gate repair project has made a difference during extreme tides since completed in February 2022 and it will be an important part of near-term protection against future storms.

December 22, 2022
November 23, 2022
Before Project Completion
January 3, 2022
After
Project
Completion
Rain and
stream
gauges
and
watershed
-
wide
Emergency Action
Plans are a key part
of monitoring and
emergency response
in flood
-
prone areas
and will inform the
planning of climate
resilience projects.

San Bruno Creek – October 24, 2021
As compared to the October 2021 storm that brought more rain, the storm in December 2022 had a higher peak flow in San Bruno Creek but apparently caused less flooding in Belle Air. We believe this occurred due to fully functioning pump stations and less tidal influence due to work done in 2022.

San Bruno Creek – December 31, 2022
Millbrae and Burlingame Shoreline Area Protection and Enhancement Project Long-term solutions to flooding in the Belle Air neighborhood In early December, OneShoreline applied for a $900,000Flood Mitigation Assistance grant to be matched by $605,000 from the San Bruno Creek and Colma Creek Flood Zones to study and design a regional project from the mouth of Colma Creek to the mouth of San Bruno Creek and along San Bruno Creek to the Caltrain tracks.

In advance of a federal grant award, in 2023 OneShoreline plans to bring on a consultant to begin work on this project.

Potential regional project components:
• Replace & elevate a tide gate built in the 1940s and build a connected pump station
• Replace & upsize two pump stations built in the 1960s along San Bruno Creek • Elevate the Bay shoreline between San Bruno Creek and Colma Creek • Build one or more stormwater detention basins adjacent to San Bruno Creek

[email protected]
Thank you

PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF THE PLANNING

COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE AN

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PERMIT AND A USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION AT 1261

CLAREMONT DRIVE

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 10, 2023
Peter Gilli, Community and Economic Dev. Director
Michael Laughlin, Planning and Housing Manager
Agenda Item 7.a.
2 Agenda
I. Staff Presentation
 Council Questions on Staff Presentation
II. Appellant’s Presentation (10 mins)
III. Applicant’s Presentation (10 mins)
IV. Public Comment
V. Council Questions & Deliberations
VI. City Council Action
3 Objective
Hold Public Hearing to make a final decision on an
appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of
an Architectural Review Permit and Use Permit for
a home addition at 1261 Claremont Drive
4 Background
5 1261 Claremont Drive
• One and two-story
addition to existing
home
• Triggers Architectural
Review Permit and
Use Permit
Street Level Photograph Aerial Photograph
Appellant
Applicant

6 Previous Public Hearings
November 4, 2021
ARC recommended
design modifications
January 13, 2022
ARC reviewed
revised design,
referred to PC
February 15, 2022
PC reviewed the
project, continued
item to get shade
studies
March 15, 2022
PC reviewed shade
studies, and design
concept from
appellant
October 13, 2022
ARC reviewed
revised plans,
referred to PC
November 29, 2022
PC voted 5-1 to
approve the project
7 Appeal T opics
• Location of the addition on the north property line
• Blocks much needed sun access
• Not an equitable solution, imposes significant light, air and privacy impacts
• Alternatives available to expand first story more,
move second story to the south side
• Home will be larger than those in the
neighborhood
• The addition is not in the spirit of the San Bruno
Residential Design Guidelines number 3.13.1 and

3.13.2 8
Analysis of Project
9 1261 Claremont Drive
Appellant
Applicant

10 1261 Claremont Drive
Maximum allowed FAR = 0.55
Existing Home
1,857 sq. ft.

0.32 FAR
PC Approved Design
3,057 sq. ft.

0.53 FAR

11 Site Plan
Appellant
Applicant

12 Proposed Elevations
RearSouth (Fairmont) Side
North (Appellant) Side
Front (Claremont) Elevation
13 Applicant Renderings
South (Fairmont) Side
North (Appellant) Side
Front (Claremont) Elevation
North (Appellant) Side
14 Residential Design Guidelines
• Adopted by City Council in 2010
• Over 150 design guidelines in 13 sections:
• Neighborhood Compatibility, Architectural Style,
Building Forms, Second Floor Treatment,
Entries, Doors and Windows, Materials and
Colors, Architectural Details, Privacy and Solar
Access
• 3.13.1 – Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent
properties
• 3.13.2 – Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent
residences
15 Design Changes Made
Reduced visual mass and shadow impacts on
neighbor
• Stepping back second floor (daylight plane) from 4’-3” setback to 8’-4”
• Reduce the length of the second story addition from
44’-5” to 35’-4”
• Reduce total height from 26’-11” to 24’-7”
Reduced privacy impacts on neighbor
• Eliminated second story deck
• Modified scale and size of windows
1 2
3 4
5 16
Proposed Front Elevation
• Stepping back second floor (daylight plane)
• Reduced total height
PC Approved DesignMarch 2022 Design
1 3
17 Proposed Side Elevation
• Reduced length of second story addition
• Reduced total height
• Removed second story deck
• Modified windows for privacy
PC Approved DesignMarch 2022 Design
Approximate size of prior second floor
2 3
4 5
18 Planning Commission Findings
The Planning Commission approved the
project on a 5-1 vote, finding that the project:
• “Will not unreasonably restrict or interfere with light and air on the property and on other property in the
neighborhood”
• “Is consistent with the design and scale of the
neighborhood”
• Is designed “in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood”
• Conforms “to the basic design principles of the
residential design guidelines”
19 Environmental Impact
Project qualifies for California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) exemption – Section 15301
20 T onight’s Recommended Action
21 T onight’s Recommended Action
Hold Public Hearing and Adopt the resolution
approving an Architectural Review Permit and
Conditional Use Permit for the Proposed Project
located at 1261 Claremont Drive
22 Agenda
I. Staff presentation
II. Appellant’s presentation
III. Applicant’s presentation
IV. Public comment
V. Staff response to applicant/appellant presentations
(if necessary)
VI. Final questions from Councilmembers (if necessary)
VII. City Council deliberation and action
QUESTIONS?
23 January 6, 2023
To: San Bruno City Council
Re: Architectural Plans for 1261 Claremont Dr (UP21-012, AR21-013) Dear Council Members,
1 am submitting this request as the immediate and directly damaged neighbor to the project proposed for 1261 Claremont Dr. The proposed addition is very large and in very close proximity to our yard and harms my family's enjoyment of our home.

The architectural plans for 1261 Claremont Dr consist of an addition of more than 64% onto the existing 1857 square foot house. The total square footage when complete will be 3050 square feet (2643 square feet when not including the garage). When all is said and done, it will be nearly double the size of my family's house immediately next door, 1251 Claremont (1410 square feet) and more than double that of the other immediate next door neighbor 1181 Fairmont (1300 square feet). In fact, the majority of homes immediately surrounding it are less than 1500 square feet. 1124 square feet added to the second story of a corner lot will make it an absolute eye sore, something many neighbors don't want present in the neighborhood. If the homeowner wishes to attain such significant square footage, more of the planned addition should be on the first story-currently, only 6% (69 square feet) of the planned 1193 square foot addition will be on the first story.

Furthermore, the second story mass running east to west on the north wing will significantly disrupt the current level of sun access to our home at 1251 Claremont. Our outdoor living space (next to the property line that will be severely affected) is really a side yard (versus a rear yard) and is an extension of the living room that utilizes this sun access for daylighting and warmth of the house through large windows. The addition for 1261 Claremont was designed, and approved by the City, as such and the significant level of shadow impact is unreasonable and should not be granted because of this flaw -the initial design was rejected because of too much shading impact, the subsequent design had the same level of shading impact but yet was somehow approved.

We ask that you require that the second level addition be confined to the southeast wing only -this would still have shadowing impacts on us at 1251 Claremont but much less significant and reasonable and acceptable to my family, thus spreading out the level of sacrifice to both parties for a more equitable solution.

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Regards, 7~ Tyson Murphy
'>.1 1 Claremont~~
E t l z.0-. \oe H'1.-\u. n z.e
I 2 3 0 C \are.mo I"\\--\)r.
.&rv\ \3f'L-t '('\ D CA. C{L\ D ~'=,
Jan... C{ '2..0 Z
'
12 p I t!L--rt/4.£'4J,(.A,'7t,t--L), I
s~~ ,C,f-
"L \~ 'b \ C \_1'-tlJCMO ,..;,'1: S'>r?
{5tr> 11, t,r.2:.v.1,r0
~~~br-/J--~ifvno (!.A ~JtUteaZ

Presentation for Appeal to Approval of
1261 Claremont
Tyson Murphy
Homeowner at 1251 Claremont
Reasons for appeal:
• Current architectural design of 1261 Claremont unreasonably restricts sun access and privacy to the side yard of our property at 1251 Claremont
• Original design was rejected by the planning commission in March 2022 due to excessive shading
• the existing design did not result in a reduction in the shading impact and yet was approved by the planning
commission in November 2022
• Seeking an alternative solution that is beneficial to both 1261 Claremont and 1251 Claremont

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ym5cvryczls
Solution
Summary
• Unreasonable restriction of sun access and privacy
• Design approved (November 2022) despite it causing as much shadow impact as the design that was rejected (March 2022) • Residential design guideline 3.13.1 (“minimize shadow impact to neighbors”) has not been met
• 94% of addition is meant to go on second floor; relocate some of that mass to make the house not appear so large from the street and not impose sun and privacy reductions on neighbor • Enjoyment of our home is threatened by current design • Maximizing southeast wing for second story without second story on north wing benefits both parties with a more
equitable solution of shared sacrifice

GREY= DELETED FLOOR AREA

RED= EX ISTING SHADOWS
FROM 1ST FLOOR
GREEN = NEW SHADOWS
FROM 2ND FLOOR
RED= EX ISTING SHADOWS
FROM 1ST FLOOR
GREEN = NEW SHADOWS
FROM 2ND FLOOR

January 10, 2023

STUDY SESSION ON THE DRAFT

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Agenda Item 8a Matthew Lee, Public Works Director
Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning + Design
Agenda
I. Objective
II. Background
III. Study Session
Presentation by Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning + Design
IV. Fiscal Impact
V. Next Steps
VI. Tonight’s Recommended Action
VII.Questions
2 OBJECTIVE
3 Objective
• Conduct Study Session and Provide Comments on the
Draft Safe Routes to School Plan
4 BACKGROUND
5 Background
• Developing new and improving existing pedestrian and bicycle networks are components of the City of San Bruno’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and overall General Plan.
• In 2020, Caltrans awarded the City of San Bruno with $248,929 to fund a citywide Safe Routes to School Plan.
• In February 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional consulting services to develop a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Plan (SRTS Plan).
• Alta Planning + Design (Alta) was selected as the consultant firm for this project, and in November 2021 Alta began their work on the SRTS Plan.
6 STUDY SESSION ON THE DRAFT

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN
Jeff Knowles, Alta Planning + Design
7 8
8 AGENDA
I. Project Overview
II. Safety Analysis
III. Community Engagement
IV. Walk Audits
V. Findings & Prioritized Recommendations
VI. Next Steps and Questions
9 9
Project Overview
10 A comprehensive program to make
school communities saferby
combining engineering tools with
education about safety and activities
to enable and encourage students to
walk and bike to school.

What is Safe Routes to
School?

11 • Through data analysis, community
engagement, and site observations
(walk audit), the City identified and
prioritized improvements to
encourage more people to walk and
bike to school.

Project Overview
12 • Belle Air Elementary
• Decima Allen Elementary
• Rollingwood Elementary
• John Muir Elementary
• Portola Elementary
• Parkside Intermediate
• Capuchino High
• St. Robert Catholic
• Palos Verdes and El Portal Schools
• Partially participating: Highlands Christian School,
Stratford School, Monte Verde Elementary (added late
based on public feedback)
School Partnerships

13 Timeline
Winter 2022
• Identified school partners
• Community Workshop #1
Spring 2022
• Walk Audits
• Community surveys
• PTO/PTA Meetings
• Identify DRAFT
recommendations
14 Timeline
Summer 2022
• Gather input on
recommendations
• Prioritize
recommendations
• Create DRAFT Plan
Fall 2022/ Winter 2023
• Share DRAFT plan
• Revised DRAFT plan
according to public input
• Produced FINAL DRAFT
Plan for Council Study
Session (January 10)
• FINAL PLAN presented for
City Council Adoption
(tentatively February 14)
15 15
Safety Analysis
16 • Color-coded roadway
segments with the most
significant safety challenges
• Weighted for collision
severity, collisions involving
youth, and collisions involving
people walking or biking
Citywide Collision Analysis

17 17
Community Engagement
18 sanbruno.ca.gov/SafeRoutes
Project Website & Surveys
19 Interactive Web Tool

20 Over 70 parents and staff
participated from:
• Decima Allen Elementary
• Rollingwood Elementary
• John Muir Elementary
• Portola Elementary
PTO Presentations
21 What We Heard
• Over 400 citywide survey responses
• 50% of respondents live within 1 mile of
school (walking/biking distance)
• Main concerns about getting child to/from
school:

1. Speeding traffic along the route (41%)

2. Uncomfortable intersections (39%)

3. Too much traffic along the route (36%)

22 22
Walk Audits
23 A practical exercise to observe:
• Biking/Walking circulation around
the school
• Street crossings
• Safety issues
• Interactions between people
walking, biking, and driving
Walk Audits
24 24
Findings and Prioritized
Recommendations
25 Infrastructure Projects
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Curb extensions
• Stop signs (or completing study)
• Painting red “no-parking” curbs
Types of Recommendations

26 Types of Recommendations
Non-Infrastructure Programs
• Encouragement events – Walk/Roll
to School Days
• Walking school buses
• Encourage families to park and
walk to school
• Driver awareness campaign
• Bike rodeos (skills training)

27 1. Program description

2. Planning resources and program examples

3. Potential partners/responsible agencies

4. Timing considerations
Non-Infrastructure Program
Recommendations
SAMPLE handout for each school
See page 19 for more information
28 • Crossing guards currently provided at three
locations:
o Angus Avenue/El Camino Real
o 3rd Avenue/San Bruno Avenue
o Crystal Springs Road/Oak Avenue
• Crossing guard at Crystal Springs Road/Donner
Avenue was recently relocated to Crystal Springs
Road/Oak Avenue to optimize student safety.
• October 11, 2022: City Council expressed concern
over student pedestrian safety on Niles Avenue in
front of Parkside Intermediate School.
o If additional crossing guard is added:
• Approx. cost is $20,000 per year.
• Would require an amendment to the current
budget to appropriate the funds.

Crossing Guard Program

29 Lower speed limits to
15 mph in school
zones
Citywide Infrastructure Recommendations
Make it easier to add
all-way stops in
school zones
Add street trees and
green stormwater
infrastructure
alongside safety
improvements
30 1. Location
• Projects in locations with the
greatest risk indicated by the
highest collision density

2. Efficacy
• Projects that have been proven
to reduce crashes the most

3. Cost
• Lower cost projects
Infrastructure Recommendations
Prioritization Criteria
31 vAllen Elementary 31
32 vAllen Elementary
33 Belle Air Elementary
Challenge noted in
2019 school safety
assessment
33 34
High Priority Projects
Belle Air Elementary
35 vCapuchino High
35 36
High Priority Projects
Capuchino High
vCapuchino High
37 John Muir Elementary
37 38
High Priority Projects
John Muir Elementary
39 Palos Verdes / El Portal Schools
39 40
High Priority Projects
Palos Verdes / El Portal Schools
41 Parkside Intermediate
41 42
High Priority Projects
Parkside Intermediate
43 vPortola Elementary
43 44
vPortola Elementary
45 vRollingwood Elementary
45 46
vRollingwood Elementary
46 47
vSt. Robert Elementary 47
48 vSt. Robert Elementary
49 vHighlands Christian 49
50 vMonte Verde Elementary
51 vStratford School
52 Citywide Project Costs
Project Priority Level Number of Projects Sum of Cost
High 22 $495,150
Medium 38 $2,132,250
Low 32 $4,970,300
Total 92 $7,597,700
53 Funding Opportunities (shortlist)
Federal Grants
• Safe Streets and Roads for All
State Grants
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Active Transportation Program
• Office of Traffic Safety (Non-Infrastructure Programs) Local Grants
• San Mateo County Measure A & W
City Funds (CIP)

FISCAL IMPACT
54 Fiscal Impact
• There is no fiscal impact with receiving this study
session.
o The adopted FY 2020-21 Capital Improvement
Program Budget includes a project with appropriation
for the development of the Safe Routes to School
Plan. The cost of the SRTS Plan preparation has
been fully funded by $248,929 of Caltrans grant
funding and $32,251 of Measure A local match for a
total project budget of $281,180.
55 NEXT STEPS
56 Next Steps
• With input and direction received from City Council, the project team will finalize the Safe Routes to School Plan and present it for City Council’s adoption at a future
meeting (tentatively February 14).
57 TONIGHT’S ACTION
58 T onight’s Action
• Conduct Study Session and provide direction regarding the Draft Safe Routes to School Plan.
59 QUESTIONS
60 LOCAL CAMPAIGN

CONTRIBUTION LIMITS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 10, 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
 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.
5 Local Campaign Finance Regulations

CITY INDIVIDUAL LIMIT ENTITY LIMIT OTHER FEATURES
Atherton $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Belmont $500 $1,000 No assumed name or unknown sources over $250
Brisbane $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Burlingame $500 $1,000
Colma $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Daly City $4,900 $4,900 State limit
East PaloAlto $500 $500
Foster City $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Half Moon Bay $250 $500 Public reporting of contributions over $100; other regulations
Hillsborough $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Menlo Park $4,900 $4,900 State limit; public reporting of contributions over $25-$100
Millbrae $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Pacifica $4,900 $4,900 Disclosure required over $600/individual and $1,000/org.

PortolaValley $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Redwood City $1,000 $1,000 Voluntary expenditure limits San Bruno $4,900 $4,900 State limit
San Carlos $4,900 $4,900 State limit
San Mateo (city) $500 $1,000 $15K limit on loans by candidate San Mateo (county) $1,000 $1,000
South San Francisco $4,900 $4,900 State limit
Woodside $4,900 $4,900 State limit
6 Proposed Ordinance
 Prohibits a contribution from a person to a candidate in excess of $500.
 Limit does not apply to contributions of candidate’s
personal funds to candidate’s own campaign.
 Requires the following notice on every written
solicitation for campaign contributions:

NOTICE TO CONTRIBUTORS: The City of San Bruno Municipal Code limits the amount that a contributor may give to a candidate for the position of city councilmember. An individual contributor may not make a contribution of more than $500 to any individual candidate in connection with a single election. Please read Chapter 2.33 of the San Bruno City Code prior to making a contribution to my campaign.
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  Provides enforcement tools:
 City may bring a civil suit to enforce ordinance.
 City may refer violations to DA or FPPC.
 Resident may bring civil suit.
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.  Question: Change ordinance to remove requirement 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
Alternative motion to remove prohibition against
anonymous contributions:

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,
with Section
Paragraph B. of Section 2.33.030 deleted
10 Questions
2023 COUNTY & REGIONAL AGENCIES
Board 2022 Representative(s)
Primary / Alternative
2023 PROPOSED
Primary
2023 PROPOSED
Alternate
Body Requires an
Alternative?
Yes/No
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) M. Medina M. Medina OPEN No alt. required Advanced Life Support – Joint Powers Board (ALS) R. Medina R. Medina OPEN No alt. required Airport Community Roundtable T. Hamilton OPEN OPEN No alt. required Airport Land-Use Committee (ALUC) T. Hamilton / R. Medina T. Hamilton R. Medina Yes, alt. required Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) T. Hamilton T. Hamilton OPEN n/a City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) M. Salazar / R. Medina M. Salazar R. Medina Yes, alt. required Colma Creek Flood Control District J. Grogan OPEN OPEN No alt. required Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force (SamTrans) M. Salazar M. Salazar OPEN No alt. required Home for All L. Mason OPEN OPEN No alt. required
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo County (HEART) L. Mason OPEN OPEN No alt. required
League of California Cities/Peninsula Division (Regional) L. Mason OPEN OPEN No alt. required, others may attend
Local Policy Maker Group (Caltrain) M. Salazar / R. Medina M. Salazar R. Medina Yes, alt. required Peninsula Clean Energy Advisory Committee M. Medina / T. Hamilton M. Medina OPEN Yes, alt. required Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (commute.org) R. Medina / M. Medina R. Medina M. Medina No alt. required San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District (Citizen
Appointment)
R. Riechel
(Appointment through 12/2024)
R. Riechel
(Appointment through 12/2024) n/a n/a
San Mateo County Council of Cities R. Medina
voting representative
R. Medina
voting representative OPEN Yes, alt. required
(Vice-Mayor or Delegate)
San Mateo County Operational Area Emergency Services
Council R. Medina / M. Salazar R. Medina M. Salazar Yes, alt. required Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment Policy Advisory Committee M. Medina / T. Hamilton M. Medina T. Hamilton Yes, alt. required

OTHER BODIES NOT APPOINTED BY THE CITY
Board 2023 PROPOSED Representative(s)
Primary/Alternative
Body Requires an Alt?
Yes/No
San Mateo County Transportation Authority R. Medina n/a San Trans Board of Directors R. Medina n/a
101 Express Manage Lane R. Medina / M. Salazar n/a
Legislative Committee M. Salazar n/a
Council of Cities / Selection Committee Chair R. Medina n/a Resource Management and Climate Protection (RMCP)
Committee OPEN n/a

2023 COUNTY & REGIONAL AGENCIES - DESCRIPTIONS
Board Description Meeting
Frequency
Typical Meeting
Location
Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG)
Determine policy matters for the Association, including adopting the annual general budget and review recommendations of the Executive Board.

Meets once or twice
yearly 9 AM - 2:30
PM
Bay Area Metro Center
375 Beale Street,
SF, CA 94105
Advanced Life Support – Joint Powers
Board (ALS)
San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group. JPA for emergency ambulance services in San Mateo County.

Meets the 3rd Wed. of
Jan/May/Sept. at 6:30
PM
Belmont City Hall 1 Twin
Pines Ln, Belmont, CA
94002
Airport Community Roundtable A voluntary public forum established in 1981 for the discussion and implementation of noise mitigation strategies at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

Meets 1st Wed. of
Feb/April/June/Aug/O
ct/Dec At 7 PM
David Chetcuti Community
Room – Millbrae City Hall
450 Poplar Ave Millbrae
CA
Airport Land-Use Committee (ALUC) To advise and recommend actions to C/CAG regarding the updating of the ALUCPs and other land use compatibility issues effecting San Mateo County.

Meets the 4th
Thursday of the
month at 4:30 PM
Burlingame City Hall 501
Primrose Rd. Burlingame
Council Chambers
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA)
Represent the needs of the cities, water districts and private utilities that depend on the regional water system.

Meets 3rd Thursday
in Jan, March, May,
July, Sept, Nov at
6:30 PM
Location central to 3
county district, not
necessarily same location
each month.

City/County Association of Governments
(C/CAG)
Association of cities and County discussing the issues affecting San Mateo County.

Meets 2nd Thurs. of
the month 6:30 PM
San Mateo County Transit
1250 San Carlos Ave San
Carlos 2nd Floor
Auditorium
Colma Creek Flood Control District Discuss matters relating to zone policies and acts in an advisory capacity to the Board of Supervisors.
2nd Tuesday of the
Month (Quarterly)
3:00 PM - 5:00 PM
City of SSF Corporation
Yard Conference Room
550 N Canal St. SSF
Grand Boulevard Initiative Task Force
(SamTrans)
Regional collaboration dedicated to the revitalization of the El Camino Real corridor.

Meets 1st
Wednesday from
2:00 - 5:30 p.m.

Annual plus Corridor
tours may also be
h ld i li f l
1250 San Carlos Avenue,
Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd
Floor San Carlos, CA
Home for All Public, private and nonprofit agencies collaborate to address the job/housing gap throughout San Mateo County.

Meets as needed
Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of
San Mateo County (HEART)
11 elected officials and 10 members of the private sector work together to create more affordable housing throughout San Mateo County.

Meets 4th Wed. of
every month
Location varies
League of California Cities/Peninsula
Division (Regional)
The Peninsula Division runs from San Francisco to Gilroy and meets at various locations throughout the Peninsula. One annual breakfast is held to elect officers of the division during the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

Meets quarterly. Jan,
March, June at 11:30
AM August at 5:00
PM
Different Locations in
August Woodside
Local Policy Maker Group (Caltrain) Advisory group comprised of officials from the cities and counties along the Caltrain corridor.

Meets 4th Thurs. of
the month at 5:30 PM
San Mateo County Transit
1250 San Carlos Ave San
Carlos 2nd Floor
Auditorium
Peninsula Clean Energy Advisory
Committee
Acts as a liaison to the community and to provide feedback on PCE policy and operational objectives.

Meet 2nd Thurs. of
the month
2075 Woodside Road,
Redwood City, CA 94061
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief
Alliance (commute.org)
Discuss ways to reduce the number of single occupancy
vehicles traveling in, to, or through San Mateo County.

Meets 3rd Thurs. in
Feb/April/June/Sept/N
ov
Meets in San Mateo,
Foster City
San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement
District (Citizen Appointment)
San Mateo County district that monitors and reduces mosquitos and other vectors.

Meets as scheduled 1351 Rollins Rd
Burlingame CA 94010
San Mateo County Council of Cities Mayor and Councilmembers from San Mateo County’s 20 cities meet to discuss issues and receive presentations on issues of mutual concern.

Meets 4th Fri.
monthly (Dec Mtg
earlier in the month)
Each month cities rotate
San Mateo County Operational Area
Emergency Services Council
Provide coordinated plans for the protection of persons and property based on the five phases of emergency management:
prevention, protection, response, recovery and mitigation.

Meets Quarterly Jan,
April, June, Sept at
5:30 PM
San Mateo County Board
of Supervisors Chambers
in RWC
Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
Policy Advisory Committee
Identify public infrastructure within Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Zone and assesses the infrastructure’s vulnerability to flooding.

Meets as scheduled
*Meeting date, time, and/or location subject to change.

Other Bodies Not Appointed by the City
Board Description Meeting
Frequency
Typical Meeting
Location
San Mateo County Transportation Authority Administer the proceeds from Measure A (1988) to fund a broad spectrum of transportation-related projects and programs.

Meets 1st Thurs. of
the month
San Mateo County Transit
1250 San Carlos Ave, San
Carlos, 2nd Floor
Auditorium
SamTrans Board of Directors The management and operation of the Express Lanes is governed by the San Mateo County Express Lanes Joint Powers Authority (SMCEL JPA), a six member joint powers authority consisting of three San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Board members and three City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Board members.

Meets 1st Wed. of the
month at 2:00 p.m.
1250 San Carlos Avenue,
Bacciocco Auditorium,
2nd Floor, San Carlos,
CA
101 Express Manage Lane The management and operation of the Express Lanes is governed by the San Mateo County Express Lanes Joint Powers Authority (SMCEL JPA),a six member joint powers authority consisting of three San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA) Board members and three City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Board members
Meets once a month
on Fridays at 9 AM
Legislative Committee Provides advice and recommendations to the full C/CAG Board on all matters relating to State legislation and ballot measures of potential interest to C/CAG. The Committee monitors bills of potential interest to C/CAG and selects those to be tracked. The Committee then recommends positions on bills for consideration by the full C/CAG Board and acts as the liaison with C/CAG’s legislative advocating firm. The Committee receives reports and recommendations from the C/CAG legislative advocating firm.

The Committee also represents C/CAG through an annual visit with San Mateo County representatives on the State Legislature and other key members at the State agencies.

Meets on the 2nd
Thursday of the
month from 5:30 p.m.
to 6:30 p.m.
1250 San Carlos Avenue,
Bacciocco Auditorium, 2nd
Floor San Carlos, CA
Resource Management and Climate
Protection (RMCP) Committee
Provides advice and recommendations to the full C/CAG Board and provides updates to the Congestion Management and
Environmental Quality (CMEQ) Committee on matters related to energy, water, and climate action efforts in San Mateo County, and develops and promotes actions, programs and resources on the same. The RMCP committee also receives reports on the San Mateo County Energy Watch (SMCEW) and Regionally
Integrated Climate Action Planning (RICAPS) program. The Committee supports the goals, strategies, and actions outlined in the San Mateo County Energy and Water Strategy, which include: conserving and transitioning our energy supply and grid, water supply conservation and technologies, collaboration, leadership, and economic development opportunities.

Meets on the third
Wednesday of the
month from 3:00 p.m.
to 5:00
p.m.

Prior to the COVID-19
Crisis, the meetings were
held at in the conference
room at 155 Bovet Rd. in
the City of San Mateo or
the County Center in
Redwood City as a
secondary location.*Meeting date, time, and/or location subject to change.