1 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Approved Minutes
Regular City Council Meeting on November 20, 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 the Youth Advisory Committee.
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 REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
PROPERTY: 1200-1340 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA AGENCY NEGOTIATORS: CITY MANAGER LISA K. GOLDMAN, CITY ATTORNEY MICHAEL GUINA NEGOTIATING PARTIES: CITY OF BURLINGAME; DW BURLINGAME VENTURE, LLC – DIVCOWEST UNDER NEGOTIATIONS: PRICE AND TERMS OF REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATIONS
City Attorney Guina reported 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. UPDATE FROM THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (YAC)
Recreation Coordinator Sydney Bliss introduced the Youth Advisory Committee (“YAC”) to give their bi- annual update.
YAC is comprised of 13 seventh through twelfth grade students that live and/or go to school in Burlingame.
The following individuals are members of YAC for the 2023-24 year: Hope DiLaura, Kristyn Lee, Sophia Bella, Ashley Fong, Hannah Osinski, Penny Reed, Adrian Yiensu, Zach Wong, Katie Friedman, Ellie Liu, Sylvie Olson, Corine Suherman, and Dylan Lachance. They noted that their main goal is to advise on and raise awareness about concerns/interests for teens in Burlingame.
A YAC representative stated that this year, their initiative revolves around public safety and preparedness in Burlingame. They stated that each month they would be putting together a PSA on a different topic. The first PSA was on fire prevention.
Another YAC representative reviewed the events that YAC assisted with this year including: Family Camp Out, Muddy Mile, Senior Halloween Dance, Fall Fest, and Kids’ Night Out including Halloween and Thanksgiving.
A YAC representatives discussed the annual YAC Social where YAC members from across the Bay Area discuss different ideas and initiatives.
A YAC representatives discussed upcoming events that they are working on including: Tree Lighting, YAC Attack, Cookie Decorating, and a Self-Defense Workshop.
A YAC representative explained that they recently voted unanimously to update their bylaws to be more gender inclusive. The following change was made:
“Any resident of Burlingame or student of Burlingame schools who will be in 7th-12th grade during the next committee term following his/her their appointment will be eligible for membership on the Youth Advisory Committee.”
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he is always impressed by how much work YAC puts into the community.
Councilmember Beach stated that she loves this update as it showcases how much work YAC is doing and how youth involvement always helps make events more fun.
8. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Norm discussed the Medical Equipment Loan Program (“MELP”). He explained that the organization repairs and cleans medical equipment and gives it to those in need for free. He stated that MELP would be holding an event on December 2nd to collect equipment.
3 9. 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 9f, and a member of the community pulled 9c.
Councilmember Beach made a motion to adopt items 9a, 9b, 9d, 9e, 9g, and 9h from the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
a. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 6, 2023 STUDY SESSION
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the November 6, 2023 Study Session.
b. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FOR THE NOVEMBER 6, 2023 REGULAR CITY
COUNCIL MEETING
City Clerk Hassel-Shearer requested Council approve the City Council meeting minutes for the November 6, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting.
c. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8.18 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE
TO EXTEND A TEMPORARY BAN ON SMOKING IN THE BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT, AND TO CREATE A TEMPORARY BAN ON SMOKING IN THE DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2024, AND TO MAKE OTHER AMENDMENTS TO THIS CHAPTER TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW (CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15278 AND 15061(b)(3))
Brian Davis discussed his health concerns for employees of tobacco lounges or back patios where smoking would occur. (Comment submitted via [email protected]).
Councilmember Stevenson made a motion to adopt Ordinance Number 2021; seconded by Councilmember Ortiz. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
d. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A SIDE LETTER AGREEMENT FOR THE TEAMSTERS LOCAL 856 BARGAINING GROUP
HR Director Saguisag-Sid requested Council adopt Resolution Number 138-2023.
e. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF INDIVIDUAL GRANT APPLICATIONS
FOR ALL CALRECYCLE GRANT PROGRAMS FOR WHICH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME IS ELIGIBLE
Sustainability Program Manager Michael requested Council adopt Resolution Number 139-2023.
4 f. 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
Mayor Brownrigg stated that a member of the public previously asked the City to look into whether there was an electric option for the City’s mower needs. He explained that staff looked into various options but that the technology was not yet there for the staff’s needs. He thanked staff for looking into options.
Mayor Brownrigg opened public comment. No one spoke.
Mayor Brownrigg made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 140-2023; seconded by Councilmember Beach. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
g. APPROVAL OF QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT PERIOD ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2023
Finance Director Yu-Scott requested Council approve of the quarterly investment report period ending September 30, 2023.
h. ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF PAVERS FROM GRANITEROCK FOR THE TOWN SQUARE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $234,709.03, CITY PROJECT #86120
Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad requested Council adopt Resolution Number 141-2023.
10. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. PUBLIC HEARING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 10.40.038 OF TITLE 10 OF THE BURLINGMAE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING LEAF BLOWERS; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378 AND 15061(b)(3)
Sustainability Program Manager Michael reviewed the background of the proposed ordinance:
• Gas leaf blowers discussed at June 5, 2023 Study Session • Ban on gas leaf blowers introduced at October 16, 2023 Council Meeting • Council direction to amend existing ordinance
o to ban the use of gas leaf blowers starting July 1, 2024 o remove noise requirements
o exempt municipal operations from day of the week restrictions when using electric leaf blower
Sustainability Program Manager Michael discussed different elements of the proposed ordinance amendment:
• Bans the operation of gas leaf blowers in the city starting July 1, 2024 • Removes noise decibel restrictions
5 • Exempts municipal operations from the day of the week restriction when operating electric leaf blowers
• Keeps day of the week zone restrictions (except for municipal operations when using electric leaf blower)
Sustainability Program Manager Michael stated that if adopted, staff will develop an outreach and incentive program to support local landscapers in complying with the ban on gas leaf blowers.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about penalties if an individual uses a gas leaf blower. City Attorney Guina replied that there is a penalty provision in the ordinance. He explained that the property owner would assume the penalty.
Councilmember Stevenson asked staff to look into how other cities set up rebates and incentive programs.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that staff should wait on the incentive program until Peninsula Clean Energy decides what to do with their surplus funds.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the public hearing. No one spoke.
Vice Mayor Colson made a motion to bring the ordinance back for a second reading; seconded by Councilmember Stevenson. The motion passed unanimously by roll call vote, 5-0.
11. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL CHANGES TO CITY’S FLAVORED TOBACCO BAN TO EXEMPT ON-SITE
HOOKAH CONSUMPTION AND INTEREST IN A CITY OR COUNTY TOBACCO RETAILER PERMIT
PROGRAM
CDD Gardiner discussed the City’s previous discussions and outreach efforts regarding potential changes to the City’s flavored tobacco ban including exempting on-site hookah consumption:
• Economic Development Subcommittee (“EDC”) discussion – May 24, 2023 • Business Improvement District (“BID”) meetings
• Survey administered from September 15 through October 1, 2023 • City Council discussion – October 3, 2023
• eNews posts
• Flyers to businesses
• FAQ page on www.burlingame.org
ACA Spansail reviewed some of the State laws that regulate smoking including:
• California’s Clean Indoor Air Law (2016), which states that:
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.”
6 o Prohibits smoking in offices, as well as indoor bars and restaurants • Flavored Tobacco Ban (2022)
o Similar to City ban, but allows jurisdictions to make an exception for hookah tobacco (shisha)
ACA Spansail reviewed some of the State law exceptions, while noting that a comprehensive list can be found in the State’s Labor Code Section 6404.5:
• Retail or wholesale tobacco shops where the main purpose is to sell tobacco • Private smokers’ lounge where it is dedicated to the use of tobacco products • 2011 California Attorney General Opinion further clarified that these exceptions do not apply if food and/or beverage is served in these locations
• SB 793 provides exemption to State ban for flavored shisha or hookah tobacco products, but retailer must:
o Have a valid license to sell tobacco
o Not permit anyone under the age of 21 years of age to be present or enter the premises at any time
o Comply with all other State and local laws relating to the sale of tobacco
ACA Spansail discussed the County’s Tobacco Retailer Permit Program. He explained that the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance further regulating tobacco retailers in the unincorporated portions of the county. He stated that the program includes larger fines for violators selling to minors and distance requirements from “youth populated areas” such as playgrounds and schools. He noted that if the City were to adopt the County’s ordinance, the County will administer the permit program and provide enforcement. He added that the County’s program doesn’t include exceptions for hookah tobacco.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the City decided to adopt the County’s ordinance, would the existing hookah lounge be allowed. ACA Spansail stated that under the City’s current law, no flavored tobacco is allowed; therefore, anyone operating is not in compliance with the City’s current law.
Councilmember Ortiz asked what constitutes enclosed under the law. ACA Spansail replied that the State law defines enclosed as: “enclosed space includes covered parking lots, lobbies, lounges, waiting areas, elevators, stairwells, and restrooms that are a structural part of the building and not specifically exempted.” CDD Gardiner added that the Planning and Building Code both look at outdoor patio spaces as not being fully enclosed. Therefore, staff has interpreted it as walls that don’t go all the way up to the roof so that there is an air gap of a significant amount.
Councilmember Ortiz asked if the establishment is only partially used as a hookah lounge, could individuals under 21 utilize the restaurant space, or would the entire establishment be off limits. ACA Spansail replied individuals under 21 would not be allowed in the hookah lounge but would be allowed in the restaurant area.
Police Chief Matteucci stated that at the October 3, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council asked about Burlingame Police Department’s enforcement in regards to tobacco and flavored tobacco. He noted that
7 the Police Department conducted multiple enforcement operations. He explained that in response to SB 793, the Police Department did the following:
• January 2023 – enforcement unit conducted outreach and education regarding SB 793 • May 2023 – enforcement unit conducted compliance checks with tobacco retailers (one of which was an undercover operation with no violations being found) • October 2023 – enforcement unit conducted undercover operations at tobacco retailers and undercover officers were able to purchase flavored tobacco from two separate retailers. Both retailers were issued citations, and 306 items of flavored tobacco were removed. • The Police Department also conducted specific tobacco patrol operations at schools and parks • February 2023 – enforcement unit conducted tobacco enforcement patrols at all City school properties where juveniles were found using tobacco products, and parents were notified.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about the City’s current regulations on cannabis consumption. ACA Spansail stated that the City’s regulations parallel State law.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if a bar could have a cannabis patio. ACA Spansail replied in the negative.
Mayor Brownrigg asked if the City allows hookah lounges, could the Council limit the number of lounges in the city. ACA Spansail replied in the affirmative.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Tiffany voiced support for the hookah lounge.
An individual discussed the cultural importance of hookah lounges.
Blythe discussed her concerns with allowing exceptions to the flavored tobacco ban and encouraged the City to adopt the County’s ordinance.
A San Mateo County Youth Commissioner encouraged the City to adopt the County’s ordinance and not permit exceptions to the flavored tobacco ban.
A Society owner discussed the cultural importance of hookahs and gave the Council a petition from community supporters for the hookah lounge.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed Toronto’s ban on flavored tobacco and how the hookah lounges there were using steam stones. He asked the owner of Society if he had considered using steam stones. The owner replied that he believed there was a chemical in the steam stones and had never used them.
Ahmed voiced support for the hookah lounge.
An individual discussed the cultural importance of hookah lounges and how they can make Broadway a destination.
8 Hadia voiced support for the hookah lounge.
San Mateo County Tobacco Education Coalition representative Tricia asked the City to adopt the County’s ordinance and not permit exceptions to the flavored tobacco ban.
An individual voiced support for the hookah lounge.
Lauren voiced support for the hookah lounge.
An individual discussed the chemicals inside steam stones and voiced concern for using that over flavored tobacco.
Blythe discussed how tobacco is full of carcinogens and other chemicals. She noted that steam stones are compliant with the California Clean Indoor Air Act.
Tricia noted that former State Senator Jerry Hill signed a letter encouraging Burlingame to adopt the County’s ordinance.
Bob Trahan voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Tish Novak voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Dogukan Solmaz voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Claudia Raska voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Jay encouraged the City to not allow for exceptions for the flavored tobacco ban. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Luci encouraged the City to not allow for exceptions for the flavored tobacco ban. (Comment submitted via [email protected]
).
Deena voiced support for the hookah lounge.
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that when the City Council adopted the flavored tobacco ban, he voted for it to prevent children from obtaining flavored tobacco. He explained that he was okay with the hookah lounge
9 as this was for individuals that were consenting adults. He added that he was disappointed that by providing an exemption to the flavored tobacco ban, the City wouldn’t be able to partake in the County’s tobacco permit program.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was in favor of providing an exemption to the City’s flavored tobacco ban to allow for on-site hookah consumption. She noted that she was in favor of the City creating its own tobacco permit program and discussed the grants that the Police Department obtained in the past to assist with tobacco enforcement. She thanked the Police Department for their hard work in enforcing the flavored tobacco ban.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was in favor of allowing consenting adults to partake in legal experiences whether it be alcohol, cannabis, or hookah. She discussed the diversity of the community and thought it was important to acknowledge others’ cultures. She added that steam stones are coated with glycerin.
Therefore, she was unsure if it was safe and didn’t want to force businesses to use steam stones.
Vice Mayor Colson suggested amending the ordinance to allow for hookah lounges. She added that she thought two hookah lounges would be appropriate, with one on each side of the highway.
Councilmember Beach stated that she trusts the Police Department and thanked them for their enforcement of the new legislation this past year. However, she wondered what else the Police Department could accomplish if the City adopted the County’s tobacco permit program.
Councilmember Beach stated that the City’s current legislation doesn’t allow for flavored tobacco.
Therefore, in order to allow for Society to operate, the Council would need to amend the law. She added that by allowing hookah lounges, the City would be costing the taxpayers’ money to enforce the City’s flavored tobacco ban instead of adopting the County’s program.
Councilmember Beach discussed the importance of culture and how it can evolve. She explained that 30 years ago, she lived abroad, and individuals were smoking on buses and in restaurants. However, when she went back recently, it was no longer a part of their culture.
Councilmember Beach stated that she believed making an amendment to allow for hookah lounges would be going backwards.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that he wasn’t around in 2019 when the Council adopted the flavored tobacco ban. However, he explained that he believed that the purpose for the original flavored tobacco ban was to prevent children from purchasing flavored tobacco. He stated that he was inclined to allow the exemption. However, he noted that he thought businesses that allow for onsite consumption of tobacco or sell it should be charged a fee to cover the costs of educating the public on the dangers of tobacco.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought this was a hard issue. He discussed the importance of being a welcoming community and allowing space for people’s cultures. He added that the City’s flavored tobacco ban had been aimed at retail and preventing youth from purchasing flavored tobacco.
10 Mayor Brownrigg discussed the higher concentration of nicotine in hookahs versus cigarettes. He explained that multiple cities including San Francisco have banned flavored tobacco. He noted that the hookah lounges in these cities have begun utilizing steam stones. Therefore, he thought it would be a good comprise between the cultural and health interests.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he thought it would be better for the City to have its own permit program and not go with the County program.
Vice Mayor Colson discussed the potential of having the option of steam stones at the hookah lounge.
Councilmember Ortiz concurred and thought that the exception to the flavored tobacco ban for hookah lounges could include the requirement that lounges offer steam stones.
Councilmember Beach stated that she wished there were three votes in favor of keeping the flavored tobacco ban in full effect. However, she explained that she was in favor of the requirement that hookah lounges offer steam stones. She added that she was also in favor of limiting the amount of hookah lounges that could obtain a permit in the city.
Councilmember Beach discussed the importance of evaluating the City’s temporary smoking ban on Broadway and in the Burlingame Avenue Business Districts in regard to how it might affect neighbors.
Councilmember Stevenson asked about the legality of requiring a hookah establishment to pay funds towards the education and outreach efforts regarding the dangers of nicotine. City Attorney Guina stated that fees are supposed to be used for the City’s cost of handling and reviewing the permit. He added that he would need to do some research on whether the fee could be utilized for education purposes.
Mayor Brownrigg noted that if the City wanted to tax the purveyor of tobacco for educational purposes, it should be for all businesses that handle tobacco in the city.
Mayor Brownrigg asked how many hookah lounges his colleagues thought they should allow under a City permit program.
Councilmember Ortiz stated two. He added that he would like there to be a certain distance requirement between the two locations.
Councilmember Stevenson and Mayor Brownrigg concurred with Councilmember Ortiz.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she was okay with two but thought one on each side of the highway was a good way to divide the lounges.
ACA Spansail asked if the Council was also interested in mirroring the County’s permit program with the exception for hookah. The Council replied in the affirmative.
11 ACA Spansail asked if the Council wanted to permit the sale of hookah for off-site consumption. The Council replied in the negative.
b. DISCUSSION OF MODERNIZATION OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 11 (TREES AND
VEGETATION)
City Arborist Holtz stated that staff made a presentation to the Beautification Commission on November 2 about potential updates to the Burlingame Tree Ordinance.
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the City’s current challenges with Municipal Code Chapter 11:
• Hasn’t been updated in 25 to 52 years
• Doesn’t follow industry practices
• Doesn’t allow for equitable replacement of trees removed • Limits tools available to the City to adapt to immediate needs • Hasn’t been an effective deterrent to intentional wrong-doing
City Arborist Holtz reviewed the goals that will be addressed by updating Municipal Code Chapter 11:
• Define terms and roles – many terms and practices have been defined by the industry over the last 50 years. The update will include modern definitions and identify what parties including City staff and Commission have authority
• Address development
o The update seeks to stress the importance of mature tree retention and to increase requirements where possible in the design phase
• Establish removal criteria
o There are many reasons an applicant seeks to remove a tree; some should not be appealable nor subject to the public noticing process
o Criteria will be established to clearly define what requirements must be met • Refine replacement requirements
o The current replacement model does not keep pace with what the actual loss is to the urban forest
o Replacement requirements will be increased and better defined • Increase penalties
o Increase in the fines for failure to follow the code
o Individuals may also be criminally prosecuted by the City Attorney
City Arborist Holtz discussed potential updates to the terms and roles section of Chapter 11. He stated that staff borrowed heavily from American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) and the International Society of Arboriculture (“ISA”). He added that staff also wanted to update the roles of the City Arborist, City Manager, Beautification Commission, and Planning Commission in regard to trees.
City Arborist Holtz discussed the updates in regard to addressing development including:
• Clearly define trees requiring identification, assessment, and valuation
12 • Encourage tree retention
• Establish tree protection requirements
• Define Planning Commission role
• Increase planting requirements
• Provide alternative planting opportunities when applicable • Authorize staff to stop work
City Arborist Holtz discussed the updates in regard to addressing removal criteria:
• Develop criteria for removal reasoning
• Identify which criteria are subject to public notification and discussion • Redefine the appeal process
• Incorporate fees for appeal
City Arborist Holtz discussed staff’s proposals on what would be appealable and what wouldn’t be appealable in regards to tree removal:
Non-Appealable Appealable
tree is dead interferes with utilities
tree risk assessment rating any other reason not specified tree health
non-desirable species
causing verifiable structure damage
City Arborist Holtz discussed staff’s proposals on what the replacement requirements should be:
• Increase payment required to tree replacement fund
• Increase size and quantity of trees planted
• Authorize staff to adjust planting requirements to site conditions
Trunk Diameter Replacement Landscape Tree
14 inches to 20 inches One – 24-inch box or two – 15 gallon Less than 20 inches to 30 inches One - 36 -inch box, two – 24-inch box or two – 15 gallon
Less than 30 inches to 40 inches Two – 36-inch box, three – 24-inch box of six- 15 gallon
Less than 40 inches to 50 inches One – 48-inch box, two – 36-inch box, four – 24- inch box or eight – 15 gallon
Less than 50 inches Two – 48-inch box, three – 36-inch box, five – 24- inch box, or ten – 15 gallon
City Arborist Holtz discussed staff’s proposals on how to update the penalties under the code including:
• Increase fines payable to tree replacement
• Recover the value of the tree
13 • Authorize City Attorney to prosecute as a misdemeanor
City Arborist Holtz reviewed a few penalty scenarios including:
• Property owner removes dead pine tree without permit
o educate
o apply for permit post removal
o require replacement
• Property owner tops a 100-foot redwood tree to 60 feet without permit o educate
o apply for permit post excessive pruning
o require payment to the Tree Replacement Fund
• Property owner removes a 60-foot cedar tree after having been denied a permit to do so o consider criminal prosecution
o require a permit with payment to the Tree Replacement Fund up to treble the value of the tree
o require replanting
Councilmember Beach asked if prosecution was currently a tool in the City’s toolbox. ACA Spansail replied in the negative.
City Arborist Holtz asked the Council to consider the following:
• What reasons should a tree be allowed to be removed?
• Which reasons should be appealable?
• What authority should hear appeals?
• Are the replacement requirements appropriate?
• Are the proposed penalties prohibitive enough?
Former Beautification Commissioner Leslie Mcquaide discussed how the Beautification Commission and Planning Commission used to work together when a design required a tree removal. She explained that she believed the two commissions needed to work together again.
Councilmember Stevenson voiced concern about the fee associated with removing a large tree that died of natural causes. He asked if other cities that updated their code to include the larger fee had done it in phases. City Arborist Holtz discussed his conversations with the City Arborist in Menlo Park and how they stated that this was the hardest part of the code to enforce.
Mayor Brownrigg stated that he believed that updates to the tree ordinance should include incentives. He discussed how the City could incentivize developers to maintain larger trees on properties by allowing them relaxed front setback requirements.
Councilmember Beach discussed the evaluation of at-risk trees. She explained that different arborists utilized different assessment ratings in order to evaluate at-risk trees. She asked about the different levels
14 of assessment and how the City would be approaching this process. City Arborist Holtz replied that there are multiple evaluation methods. He noted that ISA has a program called “TRAQ,” which stands for tree risk assessment qualification. He explained that this method seems to be utilized in the majority of independent arborist reports. He reviewed other methods that arborists use that look at mitigation measures that might increase or decrease risk. He added that another component would be considering what level of risk is acceptable.
Councilmember Beach stated that it seemed that there was a rigorous standard that arborists are trained in to evaluate a tree’s risk. City Arborist Holtz replied in the affirmative.
Councilmember Beach asked about undesirable species. City Arborist Holtz replied that there are certain types of black acacia trees that individuals think of as a weed because of their proliferation and how these trees attract birds that drop their seeds throughout an area. He noted each community values different things, and this can be sorted by description on different tree sites. He added that some of Burlingame’s neighboring cities don’t allow non-native trees. He noted that the majority of the trees that the City plants are non-native. He added that the City will need to review what the community values and how to define undesirable species.
Mayor Brownrigg discussed a situation where an individual purchased a home and then found that they were very allergic to one of the trees on their property. He asked about an individual’s ability to remove a tree in this scenario. City Arborist Holtz stated that if it is a private tree and of a protected size, it would be appealable.
Mayor Brownrigg opened the item up for public comment.
Jennifer Pfaff stated that she was concerned about “undesirable trees”. She noted that she thought it was an effort to streamline processes by cities. She discussed the importance of public input and ensuring that tree removals are appealable.
Sandra Lang discussed the point where urban forestation meets non-urban forests and the importance this plays for climate change and sea level rise.
Alvin Begun stated that he thought any ordinance the City adopts should have a preamble that trees are deemed to be protected unless otherwise proven that they are a hazard. He added that he thought the criteria for removal needed to be strengthened.
Brian Benn stated that he feels strongly that the big trees in Burlingame make the city beautiful and unique.
He noted that he thought the biggest of trees should be treated as a special category for protection. He added that he believed it was too easy for an applicant to hire an arborist to represent their view. He stated that he thought the applicant should pay the City to hire an arborist.
Linda Ryan discussed her disappointment in some of the big trees that were recently removed.
15 Mayor Brownrigg asked if a developer had a parcel with a big tree, would she feel comfortable with the developer being able to build three stories in order to keep the tree. Ms. Ryan replied that she would need to see the plans.
Ani discussed the importance of trees and updating the ordinance. (Comment submitted via [email protected]).
Mayor Brownrigg closed public comment.
Mayor Brownrigg voiced concern about charging individuals a fee if the tree dies a natural death.
Councilmember Ortiz stated that Council discussed creating a more expedient process for removing a tree in specific situations. He added the importance of erring towards allowing public hearings on whether trees are removed. He explained that he liked the idea of appealing certain tree removals to the City Manager with the understanding that some situations would require appealing all the way to the City Council.
Vice Mayor Colson asked staff to look into how SB 9 will work in conjunction with the City’s tree ordinance.
City Arborist Holtz replied in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Colson asked about the City’s liability if the City denies a tree removal and the tree then falls and damages a structure. City Attorney Guina replied that a reviewing court would give deference to the City as long as it found that the City was acting reasonably in issuing or not issuing a permit.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that in regard to utilizing the 15-inch box for replacement, SFPUC was encouraging tree replacements to be seedlings in order to create strong trees. She explained that she agreed with SFPUC, and therefore that the smaller sizes for tree replacement was a good idea.
Vice Mayor Colson stated that she liked the idea of incentivizing the protection of trees and planting trees.
She wondered if there was a way to wholesale purchase trees for residents to buy for their property. She explained that the City was able to purchase trees cheaper than an individual, and therefore the City could set up a program where individuals purchase the replacement trees through the City. She also discussed the need to assist residents with maintaining their trees when they can’t afford it. She explained that it can cost $10,000 to maintain a tree.
Councilmember Stevenson stated that he agreed that the City needed an incentive program.
Councilmember Stevenson asked in regard to liability if it was better for the City Arborist to undertake the risk assessment for a tree first or have an independent arborist. City Arborist Holtz replied that Menlo Park retains an independent arborist that is utilized when there is a disagreement between a resident’s independent arborist report and the City Arborist. He noted that when he visits a site, he is reviewing whether the independent arborist report is correct.
16 Councilmember Beach stated that she liked the idea of protecting trees that are required as a condition of removal. She added that she likes the idea of incentives, but that it needs to be further reviewed as she was concerned about subsidizing homeowners. She concurred with her colleagues that she was concerned about charging individuals large fines when a tree dies a natural death. She added that trees that are dead or dying should be removed without an appeal process.
Councilmember Beach stated that she wanted more information about how staff proposed defining structural damage and undesirable trees.
Councilmember Beach stated that she wanted to have different criteria around urban trees that interact with wildland in order to ensure wildfire mitigation. She explained that she loved the idea of having the City hire the independent arborist for a resident so that the economic interest isn’t directly linked between the independent arborist and the resident.
Councilmember Beach stated that she thought Planning Commission appeals should go to City Council but was okay with Beautification Commission appeals going to the City Manager. She added that she was okay with the replacement trees being smaller in order to allow them to be successful long term. She also stressed the importance of educating the public on the rules regarding trees, especially when individuals are purchasing property.
Councilmember Beach stated that she was in favor of the ability of the City to file criminal charges against bad actors.
Mayor Brownrigg asked about homeowners taking out trees versus developers removing trees. City Arborist Holtz replied that it was 2 to 1 with more trees being removed by homeowners. He gave the caveat of Top Golf, which is removing 80 smaller-sized trees.
Mayor Brownrigg talked about the number of aesthetic guidelines for development that get in the way of protecting trees. He explained that if the City wanted to make more space for urban forests, then the City should review the design guidelines.
Mayor Brownrigg thanked the City Arborist for his report.
12. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reviewed their committee appointments.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items.
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
17 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
Mayor Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:19 p.m. in memory of Sally Krakow.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/
Meaghan Hassel-Shearer
City Clerk