1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on October 2, 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 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
The pledge of allegiance was led by Casey Fromson.
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 LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(d)(2),(e)(3); STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; LAPENTINA/CLEWANS
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.
7. DISCLOSURE OF SB 1439 CONFLICTS (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 84308)
There were no disclosures.
2 8. PRESENTATIONS
a. UPDATE FROM CALTRAIN ON ELECTRIFICATION
Caltrain representative Casey Fromson explained that the first new trains have arrived and testing is underway and will continue through 2024. She stated that electrification is scheduled to launch in September 2024.
Ms. Fromson gave an overview of the recent history of the Broadway Station:
• Weekday service suspended in 2005 due to the holdout rule and low ridership (second lowest in system after Atherton)
• Weekday shuttle by Commute.org provides peak period service • Ridership is currently <100/day and declined substantially post-COVID • Weekend service remains (ridership is currently <100/day) • Broadway is one of two remaining holdout rule stations o Only one train can be in the station at any given time o If a second train approaches, it must hold outside the station • Holdouts affect the reliability of Caltrain and roadway operations o Increased risk of train delays
o Increased risk of auto delays and increased gate downtime
Ms. Fromson reviewed the traffic operations at the Broadway intersection:
• Broadway crossing is heavily congested
• On the top of CPUC’s priority list for grade separation • Adding weekday service at Broadway Station prior to grade separation would risk substantial delays at the grade crossing
o Additional gate activations
o Gate downtime could increase from about 45 seconds to 2 to 3 minutes if a late train triggers the holdout rule
o With already congested operations, any added delay could compound existing congestion and safety challenges
Ms. Fromson gave a summary of the Broadway Grade Separation plans:
• Project remains a top priority for Caltrain and the City • Grade separation will benefit roadway users, Caltrain riders, and Caltrain operations (removing holdout rule)
• 100% design expected in 2024
• City continues to seek funding, recently received large TIRCP award • Station will need to be closed during construction
Ms. Fromson explained the electrification service recommendation for Broadway:
• Delay restoration of weekday Caltrain service until grade separation occurs
3 • Continue advancing grade separation project as key priority post-electrification • Fall 2024 Electrified Service Plan
o Increase Burlingame service to 75 trains per day (+14 trains) o Maintain Millbrae service levels (104 trains per day) o Maintain Broadway shuttle to Millbrae (weekdays)
o Maintain weekend Broadway service until grade separation requires station closure
Ms. Fromson reviewed the grade separation timeline:
• September 2024 - begin utilities relocation
• Spring 2025 - begin shoofly track construction
• Spring 2026 - begin grade separation construction
• Spring 2029 – estimated completion date
Ms. Fromson reviewed the next steps:
• Share preliminary plans with Burlingame stakeholders (August - September) • Share draft service plan during outreach at stations and community events (October) • Finalize fall 2024 electrified service plan (December) • Launch new service plan with electrified service (fall 2024)
Mayor Brownrigg asked about the benefits of electrification. Ms. Fromson replied that the new trains have been upgraded to include outlets and Wi-Fi. She added that the trains will be able to accelerate and decelerate quicker, resulting in more trains being run in a shorter amount of time.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up to public comment. No one spoke.
Councilmember Beach stated that the Broadway Grade Separation is about 83% funded and will need federal funds to complete it. She discussed Caltrain’s commitment to the project.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
10. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Brownrigg asked the Councilmembers and the public if they wished to remove any item from the Consent Calendar. Mayor Brownrigg pulled items 10c and 10e and a member of the public pulled item 10d.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to adopt items 10a, 10b, 10f, 10g, 10h, and 10i; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
4 a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2023 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the September 5, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 18, 2023 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the September 18, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. UPDATE ON REMOTE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING COUNCIL AND COMMISSION MEETINGS
Mayor Brownrigg stated that there have been instances across the country and in San Mateo County of people and groups hijacking public comment in order to make hateful and rude comments. He stated that the City will not put up with hateful comments.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to accept the update on remote public comment during Council and Commission meetings; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF ONE WIDE AREA TURF MOWER FROM TURF STAR WESTERN, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $102,082.63
Dustin Chase voiced concern about the City purchasing a gas mower. He asked that the City continue researching electric mowers. (comment submitted via [email protected] ).
City Arborist Holtz explained that the Parks Division is getting away from gas-operated machinery.
However, he stated that staff was unable to find a wide area turf mower with a battery or electric option.
He noted that technology is progressing, and staff can continue to research electric options.
Vice Mayor Colson asked for the item to be put on pause until the City Arborist could look into the options that Mr. Chase proposed in his email. City Arborist Holtz replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to defer the acquisition of a turf mower while staff conducts further research on electric options; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
5 e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE RENEWAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH VEOLIA WEST
OPERATING SERVICES FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
Mayor Brownrigg stated that this is the 50th anniversary of the City’s partnership with Veolia. He explained that this is the longest running partnership of its kind in the nation. He wanted to highlight the partnership and the benefits it brings to the people of Burlingame.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Veolia representatives Manny and Melissa discussed the partnership between Veolia and the City.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Councilmember Stevenson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 129-2023; seconded by Vice Mayor Colson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
f. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION TO RECEIVE $1,000,000 FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE BUDGET ACT OF 2023 FOR THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REDUCTION AND RECLAIMED WATER SUPPLY
PROJECT
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution 130-2023.
g. UPDATE ON SIDEWALK VENDING ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTATION
City Attorney Guina requested Council accept the update on the Sidewalk Vending Ordinance Implementation.
h. APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT PERIOD ENDING JUNE 30, 2023
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council accept the Approval of Quarterly Investment Period Ending June 30, 2023.
i. APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S ATTENDANCE AT AN OUT-OF-STATE CONFERENCE (MPACT TRANSIT + COMMUNITY CONFERENCE)
CDD Gardiner asked Council to approve out-of-state travel.
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. INTRODUCTION 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
6 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 stated that there is a parking restriction on the east side of California Drive between Carmelita Avenue and Sanchez Avenue. He stated that staff is requesting Council alter the parking restriction on this stretch of California Drive to be a no parking zone between 12:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
DPW Murtuza stated that as part of the California Drive Complete Streets Project, a Class IV bicycle lane was added on the east side, with a lane reduction in the northbound and southbound directions. He noted that the addition of bicycle lanes on California Drive necessitated removal of existing parking spaces on the west side of California Drive between Broadway and Carmelita Avenue. He added that these parking spaces are primarily utilized by businesses. He stated that in order to address this impact, new parking spaces between Carmelita Avenue and Sanchez Avenue along the east side of California Drive must be added.
DPW Murtuza stated that over 150 meeting notices were mailed as well as hand delivered to the businesses and residents along California Drive between Carmelita Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue. He noted that while passing out notices, staff was able to speak directly to 12 of the 30-plus businesses and that all but one of the businesses staff spoke with supported an overnight parking restriction. He explained that the business that opposed the restriction was an automotive business that expressed concerns about residents not being allowed to park overnight on the east side of the street as some residents and businesses currently do.
DPW Murtuza stated that staff presented the Traffic Safety & Parking Commission with four options. He stated that TSPC recommended approval of the overnight parking restrictions. He explained that TSPC determined that the overnight parking restriction would adequately address the local community’s concerns of vehicles parked without being moved for several days, while allowing employees and others to use the parking long-term during the day.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing.
George voiced concerns about the impacts of the California Drive roadway changes. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Manito Velasco voiced opposition to the proposed parking changes. (comment submitted via [email protected]).
Mayor Brownrigg closed the public hearing.
7 Vice Mayor Colson asked when Council will receive data on the impact of the California Drive project. DPW Murtuza replied that this project was a major change on California Drive, and it will take time for the public to get used to it. He noted that it might take six months to a year, but staff will monitor the impact.
Councilmember Beach stated that it will be important to monitor the parking situation and make tweaks as patterns emerge.
Councilmember Ortiz made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
b. INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 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 explained that cities commonly utilize fees and deposits to recover costs for services they provide to specific parties, including regulatory activities. He stated that the Planning Division is responsible for administering land use and housing priorities identified by the Council in the General Plan, zoning ordinances, specific plans, and annual budget. He noted that the Planning Division also regulates land use through entitlement review and permit processing of development projects.
City Attorney Guina stated that to fund these planning services, the City mainly uses fixed fees but collects deposits in limited circumstances, either for attorney costs or environmental review. He explained that staff is recommending amending the City’s codified Application Processing Procedures and Definitions under the Zoning Title to specify that deposits may also be collected. He added that these changes would help improve cost-recovery and clarify that the City is authorized to collect deposits.
City Attorney Guina stated that the Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance at their September 25, 2023 regular meeting and voted unanimously to recommend its approval by the Council.
City Attorney Guina stated that the proposed amendment would add language to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.62.040 Application Processing Procedures to:
• Ensure the City is reimbursed for its costs of providing services to applicants • State that fees include fees and deposits
• Identify that the fee amount and type of service subject to a fee would be determined through resolution of the City Council
• Specify what costs are included for reimbursement
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to bring back the proposed ordinance for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
8 12. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CITY SMOKING REGULATIONS, INCLUDING A
PERMANENT OUTDOOR SMOKING BAN IN THE BROADWAY AND BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, CREATING AN EXCEPTION TO THE FLAVORED TOBACCO BAN TO ALLOW
FOR HOOKAH (SHISHA TOBACCO) SALES, AND POTENTIAL INTEREST IN A TOBACCO RETAILER
PERMIT PROGRAM
CDD Gardiner stated that at the April 3, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council voted to approve Ordinance Number 2016, which established a pilot program to prohibit smoking in front of all street-facing businesses in the Broadway Commercial District. The pilot program is for eight months and is set to expire on December 31, 2023.
CDD Gardiner explained that the pilot program originated with complaints from Broadway merchants regarding smoking on the sidewalk, including increased air pollution and littering.
CDD Gardiner stated that staff is looking for Council’s direction on the following questions:
• Should the Broadway outdoor smoking ban (pilot program) be made permanent? • Should a similar outdoor smoking ban be created on/around Burlingame Avenue, and should these bans extend to all outdoor spaces within the pedestrian retail districts? • Should the City amend the flavored tobacco ban to allow for hookah use? • Should the City pursue the adoption of a “Tobacco Retailer Permit” program?
CDD Gardiner stated that the City administered a survey from September 15 through October 1 in order to gauge community sentiment. He explained that the City received 399 responses.
CDD Gardiner went through the questions that were asked on the survey:
1. Which of the below responses best captures your affiliation with Burlingame and/or the Burlingame Business Community?
• I am a business-owner in the Broadway Business District – 9% • I am a business-owner in the Burlingame Avenue Business District – 8% • I am a business-owner in Burlingame, but not in either of the above business districts – 2% • I am a resident of Burlingame – 58%
• I am not a resident of Burlingame, but I’m interested in this topic – 23%
2. Are you aware of the City’s recent pilot program that has banned outdoor smoking of any kind in and around the Broadway Business District? (This includes cigarettes and cigars, but does not include vaping) • Yes – 79%
• No – 21%
9 3. Do you think the City should make the pilot program permanent (e.g. permanently banning smoking in outdoor areas around the Broadway Business District)?
• Yes – 56%
• No – 44%
4. Do you think the City should expand the outdoor smoking ban to the Burlingame Avenue Business District?
• Yes – 57%
• No – 43%
5. Would you support an exception to the City’s flavored tobacco ban that would allow hookah businesses to sell flavored tobacco to adults for immediate consumption (e.g., smoke hookah within a building or outdoors on private property)?
• Yes, I would support an exception to the current ban that would allow “Hookah Bars” to legally sell flavored tobacco for immediate consumption in a smoking lounge on the property – 65% • No, I do not support any exceptions to the current ban and think no flavored tobacco products should be sold within the City limits – 35%
CDD Gardiner then reviewed the above responses to the survey questions in terms of which of the groups outlined in question one answered yes or no.
Responding Yes to Question 2: I am aware of the City’s recent pilot program that has banned outdoor smoking of any kind in and around the Broadway Business District. (This includes cigarettes and cigars, but does not include vaping)
• I am a business-owner in the Broadway Business District – 97% • I am a business-owner in the Burlingame Avenue Business District – 65% • I am a business-owner in Burlingame, but not in either of the above business districts – 78% • I am a resident of Burlingame – 81%
• I am not a resident of Burlingame, but I’m interested in this topic – 70%
Responding Yes to Question 3: I think the City should make the pilot program permanent (e.g., permanently banning smoking in outdoor areas around the Broadway Business District). • I am a business-owner in the Broadway Business District – 69% • I am a business-owner in the Burlingame Avenue Business District – 70% • I am a business-owner in Burlingame, but not in either of the above business districts – 38% • I am a resident of Burlingame – 56%
• I am not a resident of Burlingame, but I’m interested in this topic – 50%
Responding Yes to Question 4: I think the City should expand the outdoor smoking ban to the Burlingame Avenue Business District.
• I am a business-owner in the Broadway Business District – 69%
10 • I am a business-owner in the Burlingame Avenue Business District – 74% • I am a business-owner in Burlingame, but not in either of the above business districts – 44% • I am a resident of Burlingame – 56%
• I am not a resident of Burlingame, but I’m interested in this topic – 50%
Responding Yes to Question 5: I would support an exception to the City’s flavored tobacco ban that would allow hookah businesses to sell flavored tobacco to adults for immediate consumption (e.g., smoke hookah within a building or outdoors on private property). • I am a business-owner in the Broadway Business District – 42% • I am a business-owner in the Burlingame Avenue Business District – 52% • I am a business-owner in Burlingame, but not in either of the above business districts – 67% • I am a resident of Burlingame – 61%
• I am not a resident of Burlingame, but I’m interested in this topic – 88%
ACA Spansail stated that the City Council’s ability to regulate smoking within city limits stems from its “police power” granted under California Constitution Article XI, Section 7. He explained that police power is “elastic and, in keeping with the growth of knowledge and the belief in the popular mind of the need for its application, capable of expansion to meet existing conditions of modern life and thereby keep pace with the social, economic, moral, and intellectual evolution of the human race.” He noted that the exercise of police power must be reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose and have a reasonable tendency to promote the public health, morals, safety, or general welfare of the community. He added that as smoking, second-hand smoke, and tobacco-related illnesses have been repeatedly identified as a health hazard, the City Council may exercise its police power to limit the negative health effects of these activities on the public.
ACA Spansail stated that a municipal government’s police power is not unlimited. He explained that as with all local laws, city regulations may not conflict with those of a higher jurisdiction, such as state and federal law.
ACA Spansail stated that the City’s current smoking regulations can be found in the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 8.18. He noted that this chapter includes the Broadway pilot program and the City’s ban on flavored tobacco.
ACA Spansail reviewed state laws that regulate smoking including:
• California’s Clean Indoor Air Law:
o “no employer shall knowingly or intentionally permit, and no person shall engage in, the smoking of tobacco products in an enclosed space at a place of employment.” o Prohibits smoking in offices, as well as indoor bars and restaurants • Flavored Tobacco Ban
o Similar to City ban, but allows jurisdictions to make an exception for hookah tobacco (shisha).
11 ACA Spansail stated that a full list of exceptions to state laws on smoking can be found in the California Labor Code Section 6405.5. He explained that some of the exemptions are for “retail or wholesale tobacco shops” and “private smokers’ lounges.” He added that the Labor Code generally defines a tobacco shop as a business establishment where the main purpose is to sell tobacco products. He noted that a 2011 California AG Opinion clarified that an establishment’s main purpose was not the sale of tobacco if that same establishment also sold food or beverage.
ACA Spansail stated that currently there are no exceptions to the City’s flavored tobacco ban. However, he explained that the State’s flavored tobacco ban provides an exemption for the sale of flavored shisha or hookah tobacco products, but the retailer must:
• Have a valid license to sell tobacco
• Not permit anyone under the age of 21 years of age to be present or enter the premises at any time • Comply with all other state and local laws relating to the sale of tobacco
ACA Spansail discussed the San Mateo County Tobacco Retailer Permit Program. He explained the following:
• County Supervisors passed an ordinance further regulating tobacco retailers in unincorporated portions of the county
o Larger fines for violations (selling to minors)
o Distance requirements from “youth populated areas:” playgrounds, schools, etc. • If the City were to adopt the model ordinance, the County indicates it will administer the permit program and provide enforcement
ACA Spansail reviewed three of the questions on which staff was seeking Council direction :
1. Should the outdoor smoking ban (pilot program) be made permanent and/or expanded? ACA Spansail stated that the Council should consider whether this ban includes private, unenclosed restaurant or bar spaces. He reviewed regulations in other cities including:
• Palo Alto – Smoking and the use of electronic smoking devices is prohibited in unenclosed eating establishments and bars. The City also prohibits within 25 feet of any enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.
• Walnut Creek – The City prohibits smoking in open dining areas and within 25 feet of any enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.
• San Mateo, Belmont, Menlo Park, and South San Francisco have similar tobacco bans in outdoor dining areas.
2. Should the City amend the flavored tobacco ban to allow for an exception for hookah use? ACA Spansail stated that if an exception is granted, hookah sales still require:
• State tobacco license
• 21 and over only
• If indoors, retailer would need to qualify as a retail tobacco store or smokers’ lounge (no food and drink allowed)
12 • If outdoor, retailer would need to comply with local rules on outdoor tobacco use (potential Broadway/Burlingame Avenue bans)
3. Should the City pursue a Tobacco Retailer Permit Program? ACA Spansail reviewed the potential benefits of such a program:
• County enforcement and administration of program
• Stricter punishments for violators who sell tobacco to minors
He also reviewed the potential costs of this program:
• Potentially less control at City level
• Additional requirements and costs for tobacco retailers
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he wanted to start the discussion with the Tobacco Retailer Permit Program.
He noted that what he saw as a difference between a permit program and a City regulating tobacco sales through fines is that if a business is found to not be in compliance, its permit (ability to sell tobacco) could be pulled.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the state requirement that hookah lounges be a certain distance from a youth populated area. She asked if the City built a park near a hookah lounge, would the hookah lounge have to stop operating. ACA Spansail replied that he would need to look into it but believed that because there was an existing license, the hookah lounge would be allowed to continue operating.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if he was correct that if the City went with the County’s program, the City couldn’t create its own exemptions. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment regarding the County’s Tobacco Retailer Permit Program.
San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition representative Edward encouraged the City to adopt the County’s program. He noted that it is a way to help restrict youth access to tobacco.
San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition representative Trisha spoke in favor of adopting the County’s program. She discussed concerns with the enforcement of the City’s flavored tobacco ban.
San Mateo County Health representative Edith talked about the benefits of the County’s program. She noted that the program is only for new applications and not existing businesses.
American Heart Association Community Advocacy Director Blythe urged the Council to adopt the County program.
Brian Davis urged the Council to adopt the County program.
City of San Mateo resident Lucianne urged the City to adopt the County program in order to help protect youth from purchasing tobacco. She noted that the City of San Mateo adopted the County program.
13 Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment on the Tobacco Retail Permit Program.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City could have an exemption for hookah if the City adopts the County program. San Mateo County Health representative Edith stated that the County program does not allow any exemptions.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that under the County program, flavored tobacco wouldn’t be allowed. She noted that hookah lounges use flavored tobacco.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the County program applied to smokers’ lounges or hookah lounges or only to places where an individual purchases flavored tobacco to go. Blythe stated that it applies to onsite usage and retail purchase.
ACA Spansail stated that the City Attorney’s Office would do a full review of the County program for Council.
Councilmember Beach stated that she fully supports the City adopting the County program.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if she was correct that the City could adopt its own permitting process with exemptions for hookah. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg opened up Council discussion to all four questions on which staff was seeking direction:
• Should the Broadway outdoor smoking ban (Pilot Program) be made permanent? • Should a similar outdoor smoking ban be created on/around Burlingame Avenue and should these bans extend to all outdoor spaces within the pedestrian retail districts? • Should the City amend the flavored tobacco ban to allow for hookah use? • Should the City pursue the adoption of a “Tobacco Retailer Permit” program?
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City had data on enforcement of the flavored tobacco ban. Police Chief Matteucci replied that he would need to get back to Council with this information.
Vice Mayor Colson asked if the City is checking/citing any of the retail shops in Burlingame. Police Chief Matteucci replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she has spoken with many of the businesses and residents regarding this discussion. She noted that she thought there was some confusion about the mapping of the Broadway smoking ban. She explained that Behan’s Irish Pub has a back patio for smoking. She asked if she was correct that under the pilot program, Behan’s smoking area was illegal. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she had thought that the ban only applied to the public area on Broadway and not behind retail fronts. She asked if the Council decided to make the pilot program permanent if it
14 could be amended to only apply to the front of retail spaces in the Broadway District. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Society Eatery and Lounge legal counsel, Majeed Samara, urged the Council to allow his client to operate as a hookah lounge on Broadway.
Society Eatery and Lounge representative Ali discussed the culture surrounding the use of hookah. He urged the Council to allow the hookah lounge to continue to operate.
Behan’s owner Gerard voiced support for the Broadway smoking ban. However, he stated that he thought it should only apply to the public space in front of retail businesses on Broadway.
San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition representative Tricia voiced concern about the use of flavored tobacco in hookah lounges and its health risk.
American Heart Association Community Advocacy Director Blythe discussed the City’s current flavored tobacco ban and asked the City to pass a comprehensive flavored tobacco policy that would ban flavored tobacco in hookah lounges.
San Mateo County Health representative Edith stated that the goal is to protect children from the hazards of tobacco. She noted that this includes hookahs.
An individual discussed the importance of hookahs in her culture. She encouraged the City to allow hookah lounges.
An individual discussed the importance of hookahs in her Eastern European culture. She encouraged the City to allow hookah lounges.
An individual discussed his support for Society Eatery and Lounge.
Lynn Israelit voiced support for banning flavored tobacco and not allowing an exception for hookahs.
John Kevranian encouraged the City Council to adopt a permanent smoking ban on Broadway. He added that he didn’t think there should be an exception for hookahs. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Molly St. Clair encouraged the City Council to not make an exception for hookahs.
Linda Ryan urged the Council to make the Broadway smoking ban permanent and not allow an exception for hookahs. (comment submitted via [email protected] ).
15 Linda Holden encouraged the City Council to ban smoking on both Broadway and Burlingame Avenue. She also asked the Council to not make an exception for hookahs.
Francesca urged the Council to adopt a smoking ban on Burlingame Avenue. However, she noted that she would be okay with an exception for smoking lounges. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Brian Davis encouraged the Council not to make an exception for hookahs.
Monica urged the Council not to make an exception for hookahs. (comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Tina asked the Council to extend the smoking ban to Burlingame Avenue.
An individual voiced support for allowing hookah lounges to operate in Burlingame.
Cecilia voiced support for a smoking ban in the City but thought an exception should be made for hookahs.
She discussed the harm of alcohol on the community.
An individual voiced support for the hookah lounge.
A Society Eatery and Lounge representative discussed the hookah lounge and how it was separated from the eating area.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if a hookah lounge could survive without flavored tobacco. The Society Eatery and Lounge representative replied in the negative.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that he was in favor of making the smoking ban permanent on Broadway but have it only apply to the front-facing areas of Broadway and not back patios. He added that he thought an exception should be made for hookah lounges. He stated that the City originally adopted a flavored tobacco ban in order to protect minors; however, hookah lounges were for individuals 21 and older.
Councilmember Beach discussed the impact of smoking on others. She discussed how Broadway and Burlingame Avenue are dense areas, and therefore smoke affects others. She stated that she didn’t think there should be an exception for hookahs and thought the City should adopt the County program.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that he was adamant about preventing the youth from having access to flavored tobacco. He explained that based on public comment, he would like to see the police undertake additional enforcement of the flavored tobacco ban. However, he stated that he respected the culture around hookahs. He added that he would like more information about lounges and the possibility of allowing back patios to be used for smoking.
16 Mayor Brownrigg asked Councilmember Beach if she was okay with back patios on Broadway being utilized for smoking areas. Councilmember Beach stated that she was torn on this issue. She asked if there were complaints about the back patios. She asked the police department to look into complaints and to see if it is an issue that is impacting others.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was in favor of continuing the Broadway smoking ban. However, she added that she thought that the ban should only focus on areas in front of retail spaces. She stated that she reached out to Behan’s, and it was her understanding that they hadn’t had a complaint filed against them for their designated smoking area. She explained that she believed that if an individual wasn’t smoking on the back patio, they would move to a side street and smoke in front of someone’s home. She noted that this would have a direct impact.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was in favor of the flavored tobacco ban at retail stores in order to keep it out of the hands of minors. She discussed the State’s hookah exemption and stated that she was okay with carving out an exception for hookahs in the city.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he hadn’t realized the Broadway smoking ban applied to back patios. He noted that if the smoking ban was made permanent, he would want it to only apply to the public space in front of retail stores on Broadway.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought the City’s flavored tobacco ban only applied to retail stores. He asked for more information about the County program and the State’s hookah exemption. He discussed the health hazards of second-hand smoke.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that alcohol also impacts other people. She discussed drunk driving and domestic violence. She noted that while it is legal to drink, it is not legal to drink over the limit. She explained that she believed the issue with hookah lounges and alcohol was about enforcement.
Councilmember Ortiz discussed the City’s ban on smoking in multi-family units. He explained that he had approved the ban on smoking in multi-family units because other tenants don’t have the ability to remove themselves from a smoking area. However, he noted that individuals who don’t want to be around smoke can choose not to enter a hookah lounge.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the smoking ban on Broadway applied to back patios. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative. He added that it could be amended to allow for a permanent ban on Broadway with the exception of back patios.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he didn’t believe the Council had enough data on whether a ban was necessary on Burlingame Avenue.
Councilmember Beach discussed the use of police powers to enact a smoking ban on Broadway. She asked if the City could choose neighborhoods in the city to ban smoking or would it need to be citywide. ACA Spansail replied that the City would need to explain why the health impact of smoking was greater in one area over the other.
17 Councilmember Ortiz stated that he thought the Council should adopt a pilot program on Burlingame Avenue, and then obtain comment to see if it should be permanent.
Councilmember Stevenson asked if individuals were able to answer the survey more than once. CDD Gardiner replied that it wasn’t a scientific survey. However, he noted that the survey does track IP addresses.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the other commercial district in the city and whether a smoking ban was necessary in each area. ACA Spansail replied that staff would need to look at how other cities had applied bans to specific districts.
Councilmember Stevenson voiced concern about using the police power to ban smoking in certain districts.
He wondered if it is an all-or-nothing approach. ACA Spansail replied that if the City thinks that Broadway is the most concentrated pedestrian district, there is an argument for only applying to Broadway.
Councilmember Beach stated she liked Councilmember Ortiz’s idea of conducting a pilot program on Burlingame Avenue to ban smoking. She noted that she thought it would be hard to explain why one district is treated different than the other.
Vice Mayor Colson concurred with Councilmember Beach. She noted that she doesn’t hear as many complaints about Burlingame Avenue as she does about Broadway.
The Council discussed having staff work with the Burlingame Avenue business district about a potential smoking ban.
ACA Spansail stated that staff could bring back a model ordinance that lasts for a year and bans smoking on both Broadway and Burlingame Avenue.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked the community for their input on this item.
13. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
15. 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
.
18 16. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk