Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2024.05.02• City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 F I� Meeting Agenda Beautification Commission Thursday, May 2, 2024 6:30 PM Burlingame Community Center 850 Burlingame Avenue Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. The meeting video will be uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to vflores@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the Beautification Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 PM on May 2, 2024. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 PM deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Beautification Commission after the meeting. Please click the link below to join the webinar. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87824654630?pwd=SDZuUOxDOEtDcnV1 d3pzUGxlUFpvZz09 Passcode: 766383 Or One tap mobile: +16694449171„ 87824654630#,... *766383# US +16699006833„ 87824654630#,... *766383# US (San Jose) Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Webinar ID: 878 2465 4630 Passcode: 766383 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES a. Draft Minutes March 3. 2024 Attachments: Draft Minutes 4. CORRESPONDENCE City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 4/26/2024 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda May 2, 2024 5. FROM THE FLOOR Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Proposed Multifamily Housing Landscape Award Attachments: Staff Report Exhibit A 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Update of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation) Attachments: Staff Report Exhibit A Pvhihi4 R 8. REPORTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting: June 6, 2024. Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Community Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 4/26/2024 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes March 7, 2024 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Batte. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Batte, Commissioners Bauer, Chu, Kirchner, and Khoury Absent: None Staff. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Bauer made a motion to approve the February 1, 2024, Regular Meeting with the correction of Chair Batte opening the meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chu and was approved. 5-0-0 CORRESPONDENCE None. PUBLIC COMMENT None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS 1. Updating of the City Street Tree Planting Lists Parks Supervisor Burow recommended that the Tupelo tree not be included on the City's street tree plantings lists. She explained that although the Tupelo tree is visually pleasing, and a few are planted in Washington Park, her research showed that it can cause significant root damage, as seen in other cities. Commissioner Chu thanked Supervisor Burow for her research on the subject. 2. Addition of a Landscape Award Category for Multifamily Housing Balconies or Apartment Complexes Commissioner Kirchner stated that the discussion focused on one award for either standalone balconies or apartment complex landscaping in its entirety. He explained that the award would be dependent on nominations, solicited through the internet, dropping off nomination forms at complexes, and Commission nominations. Due to challenges in contacting individual residents, Commissioner Kirchner explained that balcony nominations would work best if they were self -nominated versus entire complexes that the Commissioners can nominate. Chair Batte inquired about the restrictions associated with self -nominations. Commissioners Kirchner and Khoury stated that nominees would have to be visible from street view to ensure that the community enjoys them at large. Chair Batte said that she preferred an award for an entire complex versus individual units and balconies. Commissioner Chu stated that it is not feasible for members of the Commission to identify individual balconies, which would require those nominations to be submitted by the residents. Based on historical experience, he does not believe we would receive many nominations unless there were a significant outreach effort. Commissioner Khoury stated that she thought the incentive from the Council was to encourage renters to beautify their balconies. Chair Batte explained that tenants may be incentivized to do so if their entire complex was nominated. Commissioner Bauer stated that she also agreed that balconies would have to be self -nominated. Director Glomstad noted that the Commission should consider whether one balcony led to a complex being awarded over a complex with better or more consistent landscaping in its entirety is appropriate. Further, she suggested incorporating multifamily complexes into the residential award or creating a third award and modifying it in future years. Director Glomstad asked the Commission to consider what the addition of a new award may be or look like and how the winner would be acknowledged, aside from the City Council Meeting. Commissioner Kirchner stated that there was thought of this previously, and the idea of a posting in the E-news for the winner was an option for balconies. He stated his inclination for an award for apartment complexes and exploring the option of balconies at a later date. Commissioner Bauer suggested that the Commission vote on including a third award for multifamily complexes and further discuss the kind of award and acknowledgment at a future meeting. Commissioner Bauer made a motion to add a third category for the annual landscape awards to include multifamily units. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Khoury and was approved. 5-0-0 3. Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Chair Rotation Director Glomstad presented the staff report for the BLA and RSLA committee chair rotation and discussed the proposed schedule. She asked Commissioners to propose a submittal date for all nominations and photographs at the April commission meeting, preferably before the end of June. Commissioner Kirchner clarified that the number of nominees each Commissioner would solicit was two and confirmed with Secretary Flores that the nomination form would be edited to include two nominee entries per each award and re -distributed to the Commissioner. REPORTS City Arborist Holtz reported that his research into the Citibank development, per Commissioner Bauer's inquiry from the last Commission meeting, showed that the extent of the tenant improvement did not trigger Parks review or qualify for sidewalk replacement and enhancement requirements. He explained that as part of the modification and update to the City's tree code, he is working with the City Attorney's office to ensure Community Development is part of the process. Furthermore, he reported that the April planting is larger than typical, and staff always looks for opportunities to plant more city trees. He informed the Commission that daylighting existing pavement to create tree planting sites is a project that may be revisited in the fall of this year. He informed the Commission of the significant tree work being bid out along California Drive north of Oak Grove Ave; the work is expected to commence in early April. He stated that the urban forest was holding up better than last winter. There was one tree failure across the railroad tracks. He thanked the Commission and Council for supporting staff and the preventative maintenance program. City Arborist Holtz spoke of the field conditions due to the rain and staff working diligently to keep fields open for sports users. Lastly, he reminded the Commission of our Arbor Day celebration on March 13, 2024, at Skyline Park and invited all to join if available. Commissioner Khoury reported that the Downtown Burlingame Improvement District had partnered with a Google graphic designer who has volunteered to assist with branding concepts. Commissioner Kirchner reported that the Washington Park chapter of the Trees of Burlingame book was completed and would be distributed before the next Commission meeting. Further, he discussed the map he handed out to the staff of the groves and stands of the trees in Burlingame that require further revisions and will also be available to the Commission for review at the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for April 4, 2024. Respectfully submitted, Vervvlic'n Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: May 2, 2024 From: Veronica Flores, Administrative Assistant II Subject: Proposed Multifamily Housing Landscape Award RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission review the proposal from Commissioner Khoury and Kirchner and determine if the Multifamily Housing Landscape Award should be included as part of the 2024 award series. BACKGROUND During the March 2024 meeting, the Commission discussed the option of a third landscape award. Commissioners requested more information from the Committee Chairs to decide what award was specifically being added to the Annual Landscape Awards. DISCUSSION Commissioner Khoury and Kirchner prepared the attached document that provides an overview of the process for the new award. FISCAL IMPACT The fiscal impact is unknown at this time and will depend on the decision made by the Commission. EXHIBITS A) Burlingame Multifamily Housing Landscape Award Outline 1 FROM: 2024 Beautification Commissioners Hadia Khoury, Chairperson Burlingame Landscape Awards and Richard Kirchner, Vice -Chairperson. Burlingame Multifamily Housing Landscape Award PREMISE: 1. The City of Burlingame Beautification Commission will present a once -a -year multi -family complex landscape award for imaginative and beautifully planted and maintained surrounding landscapes about the following facilities: • Multi -family apartment facilities. 2. This award will be presented concurrently, and in addition to, the: • Burlingame Business Landscape Award • Burlingame Sustainable Residential Landscape Award NOMINATIONS Nominations from the categories above for this award will be solicited from: • Commissioners of the Beautification Commission, 2 nominations only from each Commissioner Self -nomination from renters, management, and owners of these facilities solicited through the City website and/or other forms of social media Nominations from the public solicited through the City website and/or other forms of social media PURPOSE To recognize the positive contribution to our cities' natural environment displayed by, and for, this significant segment of our Burlingame community. �, ciTv o STAFF REPOR AvoRw1- To: Burlingame Beautification Commission Date: May 2, 2024 From: Rich Holtz, Parks Superintendent & City Arborist, 650-558-7333 Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney, 650-558-7275 Subject: Update of Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Burlingame Beautification Commission review the updated concepts to Chapter 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Trees and Vegetation), and provide their recommendations to Staff. The review should include, but is certainly not limited to, the following topics: • The reduction of non -appealable removal criteria • The proposed criteria that must be considered when considering a tree removal permit • Public Noticing (and costs of increased noticing) • Proposed Appeal Process • Replacement Requirements and In -Lieu Fees o Allowance of off -site plantings (within 300' of property) to qualify for replacement/reforestation requirements • Potential uses for Tree Replacement Fund (Solely used for tree replanting vs. broader focus on programs to benefit the Urban Forest) BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame has long had a special relationship with its urban forest. Only a few months after the City was incorporated in 1908, the City enacted its first municipal code to protect a historic grove of trees. Over the years, the community and Civic Leaders sought to invest in, regulate and protect the urban forest by updating the rules governing public and private trees. In 1971, the City Council added "Protection of City Street Trees" to Chapter 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC), taking another important step towards protection of these important resources. The City Council went further through the addition of BMC Chapter 11.06, "Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection," adding protections for the rest of the urban forest. Revisions to this Chapter later took place in 1992 and 1998. 1 Tree Code Update May 2, 2024 For many years, these two Chapters have established a framework for protection of, and investment in, the City's urban forest. However, many aspects of the Code have failed to keep pace with present arboriculture practices, financial relevance and the evolving legal landscape. To ensure our program remained robust in the absence of code updates, the City of Burlingame joined other municipalities by establishing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP details City rules, recommendations, and practices in managing the urban forest. The UFMP is a dynamic document that is updated regularly. Many other public agencies have focused on the development of this document to better communicate about their urban forest with the community. However, the UFMP simply cannot overcome many of the challenges presented by the City's outdated municipal code. The bulk of the City's present tree codes has not been updated in twenty-five years, with some elements remaining unchanged for over fifty. In contrast, the UFMP was updated only three years ago in 2021. As Staff began to consider potential amendments, it first began with a significant review and discussion of other Agency's codes and experiences. This included, but was not limited to, the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Sacramento, Pasadena and Santa Barbara. This process initially began in 2018, under a different City Arborist and a different City Attorney. Their suggestions, as well as those of other City Departments like Community Development and Public Works, have helped influence these proposed changes. The resulting proposal is intended to begin the conversation regarding amendments that will ultimately modernize our Municipal Code as it relates to trees. At the November 2, 2023 meeting of the Beautification Commission, Staff presented the proposed updates and held its first public hearing. Minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit A. Many community members expressed concern over some of the proposed changes, including: • The rate protected size trees have been recently removed • The number of tree removals approved due to development • The limited amount of public involvement in removal process • That the fees proposed deter public involvement • How to weigh risk of failure against the community benefit of mature trees • The reduction of public notification of tree removals At the November 20, 2023 meeting of the City Council, Staff presented proposed updates and received feedback from some community members. Minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit B. Concerns from the public include the following: • Concern over the lack of communication and coordination between the Beautification and Planning Commissions • The inclusion of an "undesirable" species list and belief it would make removals easier • Concern the proposed removal criteria doesn't go far enough to protect large trees • Suggestion the City retain an independent arborist to perform evaluations when needed • Desire for larger sized tree replacement requirements 2 Tree Code Update May 2, 2024 City Council members offered the following sentiments: • Concern over a removal fee for a tree that perished naturally • Information on how our ordinance works in relation to SB 9 and other state -mandated developments that do not allow discretionary approval • Inclination towards City Manager review of specific appeals • Desire for options including the planting of smaller trees that naturalize more readily • Research of mechanism of City funds to assist with private tree maintenance and planting • Support of no appeal process for trees that are dead or dying (without hope of recovery) • Better definition of "undesirable" trees • Support of a City -hired arborist for evaluation of private trees when required • Different criteria for trees in wildland areas • Better outreach to new property owners • Desire for variances with development in order to preserve a tree Based upon the feedback received from the Beautification Commission, City Council and members of the community, the previously discussed portions of the code relating to Violations, Penalties, Remedies, definitions and benefits were well -received as concepts. However, as Staff has received many comments related to increased fines for wrongdoers, it is important to note that state law limits fines to $1,000 per violation (Cal. Gov't Code 36901). Staff is recommending a fine in this amount for violations of the Ordinance, as well as additional restitution requiring either in -kind re -planting, or alternatively a payment of the appraised value of the removed and/or damaged trees (and costs of replanting) to the newly created Tree Replacement Fund. The City Arborist and City Attorney's office have researched the remaining subjects further, and are returning to the Beautification Commission, Planning Commission and City Council for further review and feedback before circulating a draft ordinance. DISCUSSION Development and Redevelopment Our community has seen a large increase in development and redevelopment projects over the past decade. Some of this increase in development has been driven by recent changes in state law regarding the development of specific housing projects, which supersede Burlingame's local regulations. These new laws, aimed at increasing the speed and efficiency in which residential units are built throughout the state, require "ministerial approval" of projects that meet certain requirements. "Ministerial approval" means that the process for approval must include no subjective judgment by a City Official or Commission. This includes recent state laws addressing the ministerial approvals of Accessory Dwelling Units, as well as projects qualifying for review under the rules of Senate Bill 9. While the City continues to study this legal issue, Staff believes that these state laws, which preclude the City creating an objective standard that would prohibit the construction of the residential unit, would also supersede the City's ability to deny a tree removal permit if necessary to construct the project. However, Staff believes that the City can still impose most other requirements within a tree permit, including replacement requirements or fees which are discussed below. 3 Tree Code Update May 2, 2024 While Staff believes the City is very limited in its ability to review tree removals in the above projects requiring ministerial approval, that is not the case in most other instances. The proposed code update expressly calls out the importance of trees, and the impact of construction on remaining trees. The update will include protection requirements of trees to remain, retention of a project arborist for large developments, and submission of arborist reports. Many in our public have voiced concern that we already allow too many trees to be removed due to construction activity. Our present code does provide for tree removal to allow "the economic enjoyment" of a property (BMC 11.06.010). The proposed redefinition of this is as follows: "That the tree must be removed to use the property for any City authorized or permitted use under Title 25 (the Zoning Ordinance) for the zoning district in which the property is located, and the use could not be made of the property unless the tree is removed." Staff believes a balanced approach must be taken to ensure reasonable development is not stalled in many instances. Staff recommends that instead, a development application should list proposed tree removals, and they should become a part of the Planning Commission approvals for this project. In such instances, the City Arborist will provide a recommendation regarding these removals and tree protection measures to the Planning Commission. Any approvals for tree removals, as well as requirements for tree protection and replanting, would be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project, as part of the Planning Commission's overall project approval process. Staff will work with Community Development Staff and the Planning Commission to ensure Planning Commissioners understand their role of considering proposed development with relationship to protected trees. Additional outreach will occur with the Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders in the development community. Removal of protected trees Mature trees contribute significantly to the benefits of an urban forest. It is the City's goal to retain healthy mature trees that are appropriately selected for their location. The benefits of a well - placed tree contributes to a community are beyond measure, and include many health benefits for residents. When a tree is considered for removal, a criterion is established and administered by the Parks and Recreation Department in accordance with the UFMP. The proposed update codifies past department practice by identifying which reasons for tree removal approvals are appealable, and which body or bodies will have authority to consider appeal proceedings. Members of the public have expressed significant concern with the previously proposed criterium and limiting of appeal rights based upon the reason for removal. Staff have adjusted proposed changes to exclude only situations where a protected private tree is dead, dying, or qualifies as an emergency removal (active failure) in accordance with the Municipal Code and Department policy. In these situations, public notice would still occur, but there would not be an ability to appeal. One of the criterium that received both support and criticism is the determination of the City Arborist that a tree species is less desirable. This criterium has been reduced to language of undesirable species as one factor to weigh amongst all other potential removal or retention reasoning. Staff will not be proposing an "undesirable tree" list maintained by the City nor a restriction of appeal rights based on this reasoning. Tree Code Update May 2, 2024 Concern has also been expressed regarding the loss of mature trees that contribute significantly to the community. For this reason, we have included a factor for consideration which weighs the overall environmental benefits a tree may contribute to the community prior to approval. Staff will continue to work with Community Development and the Planning Commission to determine if zoning variances will be provided for in order to retain a tree that would otherwise be in conflict of proposed development. Puhlic notice Presently, the public notice requirement for privately protected tree removals is within 100' of the subject property. The updated code will include language that allows the Director or City Arborist to expand the notification area and require physical and/or electronic postings and notifications dependent upon the impact the tree has on a neighborhood. Public notice of tree removals of City trees that are 14" Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) and larger will also be included in the public notice requirement. Appeal of City Arborist decisions As discussed above, Staff recommends that if a project requires Planning Commission approval and that project proposes to the removal of protected trees, then the decision regarding tree removal will be made by the Planning Commission as part of its other land use approvals for the project. Currently, appeals of the Planning Commission decision go to the City Council. Therefore, any tree removals approved by the Planning Commission would then be heard, as an overall appeal of the development project, by the City Council. Staff also suggests the appeal of a privately -owned protected tree removal initially be heard by the Beautification Commission. Currently, appeals of the Beautification Commission go to the City Council. However, in this proposed update, Staff recommends that appeals of the Beautification Commission be heard by a hearing officer or body designated by the City Manager. City -owned trees are presently not subject to appeal, and Staff does not recommend a change to this practice. Replacement and Reforestation Requirements Whether due to removal of a protected tree or as a result of development, tree plantings of specific size and quantities are required under the current code and continue in the proposed update, with some changes. These trees are intended to be retained for the benefit of the entire community. Trees provide significant benefit and are considered as critical infrastructure when planted in the City right-of-way (ROW). Staff proposes replacement schedules as follows: 1. A tree replacement plan for private protected trees located on lots that include single or two -unit dwellings must provide for the replacement as follows: t+� Tree Code Update May Z 2024 TRUNK REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE* DIAMETER inches to 20 inches One — 24-inch box or two — 15-gallon > 20 inches to 30 One — 36-inch box, two — 24" box, four 15-gallon inches > 30 inches to 40 Two — 36-inch box, three — 24" box, six 15-gallon inches > 40 inches to 50 One — 48" box, Two — 36-inch box, Four — 24" box inches > 50 inches Two — 48" box, Three — 36-inch box, Five — 24" box *Replacement landscape tree trees must be in good health, standard form and meet the above definition of landscape tree. The Director reserve the right to require specific species and/or size landscape trees as replacement. Off -site plantings within the 300' neighborhood will be considered at the sole discretion of the Director or City Arborist. A tree replacement plan for private protected trees located on all other lots (including commercial development) must provide for the replacement of trees at a ratio of one -inch DSH of tree replaced for each inch DSH of tree removed (1:1 ratio). The following equivalent sizes shall be used whenever new trees are planted (either on -site or off -site) pursuant to a tree replacement plan: DSH EQUIVELANT REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE CONTAINER SIZE One Inch 15 Gallon Container Two Inch 24 Inch Box Three Inch 36 Inch Box Four Inch 48 Inch Box Where trees cannot be replaced on -site or off -site within the neighborhood (300' of subject property) as required, Staff proposes that the City Arborist approve an in -lieu fee or apportioned amount payable to the Tree Replacement Fund to be utilized for the planting and fostering of young trees elsewhere in the urban forest. The proposed update increases the size and quantity of trees needing to be planted dependent upon the size of the tree being removed or the proposed development. It also differentiates replant requirements and between typical residences and large commercial/residential properties. 2. Reforestation requirements related to development are proposed as follows: Development Reforestation Requirements. A development or redevelopment project must include reforestation of the subject property with landscape trees as required below: DEVELOPMENT TYPE REFORESTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS One and Two -Unit Dwellings One Landscape Tree/ 1,000 Square Feet of Habitable Space rol Tree Code Update May 2, 2024 Multi -Unit Dwellings One Landscape Tree/ 2,000 Square Feet of Structural Lot Coverage Commercial Zoning One Landscape Tree/ 5,000 Square Feet of Structural Lot Coverage Existing trees on the parcel that meet current City criteria may qualify as credit toward replanting/reforestation requirements. This section also provides deference for the Director or City Arborist to adjust or waive replanting requirements prior to Planning commission approval with Development projects or the decision of a private protected tree removal permit application. Tree Replacement Fund The ordinance update will also include a proposed provision to collect fees for the purpose of planting and maintain the urban forest. Language will be proposed to allow for Council authorization of the funds for the furtherance of the urban forest. Such use would require a resolution of the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Staff anticipates an increase to the Tree Replacement Fund due to proposed increased fees associated with protected tree removal and failure to meet required tree plantings. There will also be an anticipated increase for appeals fees. Staff also forecasts an increase in expenditures for expanded public noticing and an estimated 500 additional Staff hours per annum and increased mailing costs. Attarhmantc • Exhibit A: Minutes from Beautification Commission meeting November 2, 2023 • Exhibit B: Minutes from City Council meeting November 20, 2023 ri EXHIBIT A BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Approved Minutes November 2, 2023 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Bauer. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bauer, Commissioner Khoury, Kirchner and Batte (arrived at 6:38 p.m.) Absent: Commissioner Chu Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, and Recording Secretary Diaz Others: None MINUTES Chair Bauer made a motion to approve the October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Khoury and was approved. 3-0-0 (Batte was absent) CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT Jennifer Pfaff stated that she had an idea to honor the trees of Burlingame. She suggested that the community be able to nominate a tree of their choice, and that tree get an award. Ms. Pfaff stated that there are landscape awards. Dale Perkins did paintings to honor trees, and it was her idea to broaden the beautification awards. OLD BUSINESS 1. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1134 Douglas Ave Parks Superintendent Holtz summarized the staff report for the Commissioners and why he approved removing the tree. He noted that at the last meeting, there was a question about ownership and that the item was continued to allow more time to determine ownership. Parks Superintendent Holtz also noted that at the previous meeting, there was a discussion about 1132 Douglas Ave. taking liability for the tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. He stated that no agreement had been reached to his knowledge. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that Commission action was required to determine if the application met the conditions for removal under the Municipal Code. Chair Bauer questioned if there were any updates from the tenant at 1132 Douglas Ave. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated no updated information had been received since the last meeting. Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment from parties not part of the action. EXHIBIT A With no one wishing to speak from the public, Chair Bauer closed public comment. Lisa Brady, the first appellant and tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave., stated she was unsuccessful in reaching her landlord, Henry, who lived in China. She shared that she only emails with her landlord or his sister. Ms. Brady got ahold of Henry's sister and asked if she could help get ahold of Henry. Chair Bauer stated that the property owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. needed to be involved in the discussion. She stated that as a tenant, Ms. Brady did not have legal status for the tree. Ms. Brady stated that she has renters' insurance, and from research that she had done, homeowner insurance companies are responsible for damage caused by a healthy tree if it were to fall due to a tornado, hurricane, or winter storm. She stated that the homeowner would not be responsible unless the tree was in poor health, and the homeowner was aware and did not take action to cut down the tree before the storms caused any damage. Ms. Brady stated that she would pay for the trimming of the tree to give it six months to see how it reacted. She stated that the tree offered a great amount of shade as she did not have air conditioning. Ms. Brady stated that she had lived on the property for 13 years and asked Henry to take care of the tree maintenance. She stated that although she had not taken care of the tree maintenance in the past, she was now willing to take on the maintenance costs. John Root, the second appellant, lives across the street from 1134 Douglas Ave. He stated that there was no imminent danger and only minor disruption to the driveway. Mr. Root suggested giving the tree a chance while Ms. Brady could get in contact with the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. He stated that the tree was one of the key elements for the development plans and removing the tree would make it less appealing as there would only be one redwood tree left out of three trees that were originally there in total. Dion Heffran, the Respondent, apologized to the Commissioners for leaving last month's meeting early. He asked the Commission if they had a chance to see the tree trunk. Chair Bauer stated yes, everyone from the Commission had a chance to see the tree. Mr. Heffran stated that the trunk had moved about 3 to 4 inches in six months and was pulling the fence down. He said that in the last rain cycle, the trunk started to move towards 1132 Douglas Ave. Mr. Heffran stated that for the last 14 years, he had not had an issue with the tree, but that had changed due to his legal liability. He said he was concerned because the tree was dangerous to life and limb. He requested that if the appeal was approved and the tree was trimmed, Ms. Brady would be required to post a performance bond with the City of Burlingame for $5,000.00, which was the cost of taking down the tree and removing the debris. Gloria Heffran, the wife of the Respondent, stated she went to 1132 Douglas Ave. to talk to Ms. Brady with the hope of getting the landlord's contact information. She said she wanted to contact the landlord since he did not return in October, as Ms. Brady stated. Mrs. Heffran expressed concern as the rainy season was approaching and having to wait more time. She gave an example of the trees along California Drive, stating that if action had not been taken and they would have waited another month or two, people could have died with the trees coming down. Mrs. Heffran stated that Ms. Brady said she would take on the maintenance EXHIBIT A cost but was concerned it would not happen since Ms. Brady stated she did not have the money at the last meeting. Burlingame resident stated that she missed her opportunity to speak and requested to be able to speak. Director Glomstad stated that if public comment was opened again, everyone would have a chance to speak again. Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment. Ani Safavi stated she has been a Burlingame resident for more than 22 years. She said her concern about protected trees being approved for removal due to safety and the City's concerns about liability and development over tree preservation. Ms. Safavi stated the trees belong to the citizens of Burlingame and suggested more consideration before removing the trees. She said trees are needed for everyone's well- being and wildlife and to combat climate change. She stated she was in opposition to the tree removal. Jennifer Pfaff stated she also owned a Coastal Live Oak tree, loved her tree, and saw why Ms. Brady loved that tree so much. Ms. Pfaff said she thought the tree should be trimmed and see how the tree did. She stated that if the tree did not do well, then the tree should be removed. Linda Ryan, resident of 1532 Drake Ave., stated she was an avid dog walker. For 23 years, she has witnessed the removal of protected trees and said the replacements had not been with significant trees. Ms. Ryan stated that if the tree did get removed, it should be replaced with a 24-inch box tree. Leslie McQuaide stated that she owned property in Carmel, her cousin owned property in Del Mar, and she had friends in Portola Valley, Atherton, and Hillsborough. She stated that in those cities, they did not remove trees. If construction must be done or if a house was remodeled, it must be done in a way that trees were not removed. Ms. McQuade stated they were beautiful communities because they kept their trees, and she would like to see the same for Burlingame. Chair Bauer closed the floor to public comment. Commissioner Kirchner questioned if pruning the tree would mitigate any future failure. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated further testing could be done on the tree to help identify any future problems. He noted the tree could be a candidate for pruning. Still, the pruning would be beyond what was typically recommended and would subject the owner of the tree to significant remediation pruning. When performing heading cuts or reduction pruning, it is important to cut to a branch at least one-third of the diameter of the branch you are cutting to, which may not be an option with this tree. That does not mean the cut could not be made, but the tree would have epicormic sprouting, leading to a bush tree/broccoli tree. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that to have strong, healthy, long-term branches, annual pruning would be required for several years. He added that Chapter 11.06 of the Municipal Code, Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance, section 11.06.060 allows removal for the following reasons: (d) (1) the condition of the tree with respect to the proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, EXHIBIT A driveway, and other trees... and, (d)(7) the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain, which stay with the owner of the tree. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the parties can work out an agreement privately, but the determination of whether the tree meets that threshold for removal was the decision before the Commission. Commissioner Batte questioned who is financially responsible for the tree removal cost. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the tree owner would take on the cost. He said that 1134 Douglas Ave. owns the tree and overhangs onto 1132 Douglas Ave. The tree could be pruned by 1132 Douglas Ave. without permission from 1134 Douglas Ave. up to 25% over their property line so long as it does not cause tree failure or health issues. Commissioner Kirchner stated that at the end of last month's meeting, a survey was suggested to determine the tree's ownership as it seems right on the property line. He stated that he was not aware of any survey being done. Therefore, the purview remains with the owner of It 34 Douglas Ave. Commissioner Kirchner noted that he favored removing the tree per the City Arborist's recommendation due to the current conditions of the tree and per the ordinance. Chair Bauer stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kirchner and favored removing the tree due to its leaning and maintenance cost. She said putting the liability and cost on the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave was unreasonable. Commissioner Khoury stated that everyone on the Commission loved and wanted to protect the trees of Burlingame. However, there were times when a tree needed to be removed. She stated her concern is the cost and many years of required maintenance. Commissioner Koury said that per the City Arborist's recommendation to remove the tree, she agreed due to the tree leaning and the amount of trimming needed, potentially creating a broccoli tree. Chair Bauer made a motion to deny the appeal for the removal of 1134 Douglas Ave. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Batte and approved 4-0-0. Chair Bauer stated the tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. could be removed after the property owner received the written Commission determination via mail. She stated that to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council, an appeal should be filed with the City Clerk's office and an appeal fee of $614.00. NEW BUSINESS 1. Update to Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation) Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that he would be discussing proposed updates to Chapter 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). He shared that some elements of the City's present tree code had not been updated in 52 years. In 2018, a different City Arborist and City Attorney began the process. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there would be several future meetings to discuss the matter but would be sharing concepts with the Commission and the community to get feedback before presenting to the Council and then beginning to develop language changes to the Code. He stated that he had looked at other cities' municipal codes, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the City of Sacramento, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara. EXHIBIT A Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the goals to be addressed by updated BMC Chapter 11 would be to define terms and roles which would identify what parties, including City staff and Commission, had authority, address development to stress the importance of mature tree retention, establish removal criteria to clearly define what requirements must be met, increase replacement requirements, and increase penalties for failure to follow the Code including criminal prosecution by the City Attorney. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) were industry leaders in arboriculture. He noted some terms were being looked at and incorporated into the Code, as well as specific roles for the Parks and Recreation Director, the City Arborist, the City Manager, the Beautification Commission, and the Planning Commission. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that currently, for development projects, he was not seeing the tree removal application until the plans had been approved. He wanted to discuss that process with the Community Development Department staff and the Planning Commission. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there had been an improvement in protection measures for mature trees during development in recent years. He said it was important to encourage the retention of large trees and recognize the important community benefit that these large mature trees play in our community. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the Planning Commission's role would need to be defined to establish their ability and authorization to request or require changes to retain a mature protected tree. He stated that sometimes, depending on the site condition or development, the planting space is limited and frequently excused. The new Code could utilize funds or alternative planting elsewhere in the urban forest for the community's benefit. He stated that he would also like to be able to empower staff to stop work when any of these measures are not being followed. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the proposed update would clarify reasons for tree removal, identify which are subject to public notification/discussion, the appeal process, and the fees, as it requires a significant amount of mailing. He stated that the Beautification Commission is currently the leader for the appeal process in most situations, followed by the City Council. Other communities have appeals overseen by the City Manager. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that a dead tree should be non -appealable, although some residents think it could be a living space for critters. He said the Tree Risk Assessment ratings had four levels: low, moderate, high, and extreme. When a tree was in the high or extreme rating, and there was no appropriate mitigation measure to reduce the likelihood of failure, it should be non -appealable if the City Arborist agreed with the independent Arborist report. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the tree health rating would be a tree that was mostly dead or had a known terminal disease that limited its life within the next year should be non -appealable. He also stated that some communities have a list of non -desirable species that are not considered appropriate for the urban environment due to their increased risk or propensity to be invasive. These communities exempt the species from the appeal process, and Palo Alto exempts them from the application process. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that all trees should be subject to the application process because replacement trees should be protected. EXHIBIT A Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that if a tree was causing verifiable structural damage or damage to a home via a structural engineer, it should not be appealable. He said that applications due to interference with utilities would be appealable. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that replacement requirements are currently on a 1:1 basis. He said that where trees could not be replaced on the required basis, payment would be required to the Tree Replacement Fund to be utilized for planting and fostering young trees elsewhere in the urban forest. If a larger tree was removed, there should be greater planting requirements. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there should be more flexibility for the City Arborist to adjust planting requirements to site conditions. There are large properties that could accommodate more trees. He stated that he had been working with the Assistant City Attorney on ways to recover the value of the removed trees. The City aimed to educate the public on tree benefits and Burlingame's rules for protected trees. Parks Superintendent Holtz shared some penalty scenarios: the property owner removed a dead pine tree without a permit, the City's goal is to educate the property owner and require a permit post removal and a replacement. When a property owner tops a 100' redwood tree to 60' without a permit, the City would educate the homeowner and require a permit post excessive pruning and payment to the Tree Replacement Fund proportionate to the tree canopy removed. Lastly, if the property owner removed a 60' cedar tree after being denied a permit to do so, the City would consider criminal prosecution, and the owner would be required to obtain a permit and make a payment to the Tree Replacement Fund to treble the value of the tree and require replanting. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that this was the beginning stage of the Code update. He didn't have specific language to share yet, but there would be multiple opportunities for public comment at future Council meetings. He stated that the current Code dealt with City and private trees separately and would like them all considered protected trees. Commissioner Kirchner stated that he is interested in refining the replacement requirements and that the replacement trees are automatically protected no matter their size. He questioned how it would be documented or how the tree would be attached to a property owner or a developer. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that an asset management system called Arbor Access was currently being used for the City trees. He said there is an element in the system that could be used to track private trees. Commissioner Kirchner stated that he would like the Commission to be able to review the tree removal applications that are related to development. Parks Superintendent Holtz questioned at what stage that would be in. Commissioner Kirchner stated it would have to be in the preliminary stage. He said there were rules that if you are within the footprint allowed by building codes, there is no option, and the trees must be removed. He was looking forward to the pricing requirements for replacements. EXHIBIT A Chair Bauer stated that she would like to see that the greater the trunk diameter, the greater the replacement requirement. She said that she did not think there should be an option to do eight smaller 15-gallon trees and liked the first level of the removal replacement schedule. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the smaller the container that was planted, the faster the tree would acclimate and grow, and the longer the trees had been in containers and sized up, the longer it could take to acclimate. From a quantity perspective, he stated that eight smaller 15-gallon trees would do more for the urban forest than one tree. Commissioner Khoury questioned if a 15-gallon tree was well maintained could it catch up to a 24-inch box tree. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated it could take a couple of years. He stated that it was harder to get larger trees planted in homes built on hillsides and would require small trees to be planted instead. Park Superintendent Holtz stated a challenge for Menlo Park was that it was hard for replacements to take place when the residents are on a fixed income. Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment. Leslie McQuade stated that residents were parking between the new Citridora trees planted along Easton. Ms. McQuade noted that the Commission should work with realtors to stress the importance of trees in the community to new residents coming to Burlingame and builders. She stated that it was important to keep the big trees as Burlingame is a City of trees. Gerard Manning stated that he would like the Commission to consider changes to the Code. Mr. Manning said that trees overshadowed rooftops, and residents could not put in rooftop solar. He stated that the climate would change and that Burlingame's residents, who were among the richest communities in the world, were emitting more carbon dioxide. Mr. Manning stated that a solution was to electrify homes and use solar power. He said that we need to triple our electricity supply in California by 2045. We do not have a plan to bring in new transmission lines and would be stuck with power outages in the middle of heat waves, resulting in people going to the emergency room. Mr. Manning stated he would like the Commission to consider the pros and cons of tree retention concerning solar as they looked at the new Code. Jennifer Pfaff stated that she requested planting different trees besides maple trees. She said she was glad to hear that the new Code was expanding the definition of protected trees and the public benefit of including newly planted trees in new projects and renovations. Ms. Pfaff stated that in the last decade, she had witnessed dozens of trees that were lost. Gordon Foster, a resident of Burlingame for 43 years, stated when he moved to Morrell Ave., there were four big trees on the corner, and they were no longer there. He said he was worried about the number of big trees being removed. He was glad to hear about the updates to the ordinance and stated that large trees created fear and anxiety in residents, especially after big storms, but thought those were not valid reasons to remove a tree. Mr. Foster stated that he would like carbon sequestration to be a criterion when removing large trees and planting the replacements. EXHIBIT A Linda Ryan stated she was concerned about the time the process was taking because of climate change. Ms. Ryan said that her neighbor removed two big trees in front of her house eight years ago, which the City replaced. She stated it took eight years to walk under them and felt time was of the essence. She noted that it was important for the new ordinance to include notifying more neighbors of tree removals and giving them more time to appeal. Lastly, she wanted neighbors to be notified when tree removal work was to occur so they could plan accordingly, as some residents work from home. Ani Safavi said she was glad to hear that the ordinance was being updated after 50+ years. Ms. Safavi stated that her concern was that residents were not being informed when a tree was being removed. She stated the ordinance should apply to everyone because potential residents buying a house in Burlingame vs a developer may have different interests. Chair Bauer closed the floor to public comment. REPORTS Commissioner Kirchner reported that at the last City Council meeting where the landscape awards were handed out, there was a point about apartments or apartment balconies being included as part of the design award criteria. He stated that could be put on the agenda for next month's meeting to discuss. Commissioner Kirchner suggested that student drawings be given to the owner of the business award, which could be in memory of Dale Perkins. Chair Bauer stated there could be a competition with Arbor Day, and the drawing winner could become part of the landscape award. She stated that the guidelines for next year's landscape awards could be discussed at the next meeting. Commissioner Khoury reported that the Christmas lights were up and thanked Director Glomstad, the City Electrician, the Public Works Department, Jenny Kelleher, and Bay Luminations. She stated that the side streets could not get lights this year but would have holiday decorations, and 32 planters would be decorated with flowers. Director Glomstad reported that Parks Superintendent Holtz was working on door hangers for homeowners who got a City tree planted to provide information on the benefits and importance of watering trees. She stated that the door hangers should be ready for the next street tree planting. Director Glomstad also reported that Administrative Assistant Flores gave birth to a baby boy named Ezequiel. Both mother and baby are doing well at home. Lastly, the Tree Lighting is scheduled for Friday, December 1, 2023, and the Commission should confirm their attendance via email to Supervisor Crossfield. The Winter Craft Fair is scheduled for December 2 and 3. Parks Superintendent Holtz reported that City staff was hardworking and efficient in planting 38 Citriodora trees along Easton Drive. He stated that City staff was gearing up for winter preparations and that the city council had authorized significant work on Eucalyptus trees. ADJOURNMENT EXHIBIT A There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2023. Respectfully submitted, Amorica -Pla?- America Diaz Administrative Staff CITY 0 BURLINGAME -T 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 C�iY�]3_1:3�►ZSM;WPiLeYlis9-AAfro IJe1V>i191il There were no requests. 5. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION [;aa[;r. A 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. 1 EXHIBIT B 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 h",,,%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. 2 0:1:11 111■ 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. 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 (CEOA 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 publiccomment@burlingame.org). 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 ASIDE 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. 0:1:11 111■ 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 S234.709.03. 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 4 EXHIBIT B • 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." 5 EXHIBIT B 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 0 EXHIBIT B 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. 7 EXHIBIT B 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 publiccomment@burlingame.org). Tish Novak voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). Dogukan Solmaz voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). Claudia Raska voiced support for the hookah lounge. (Comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). Jay encouraged the City to not allow for exceptions for the flavored tobacco ban. (Comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). Luci encouraged the City to not allow for exceptions for the flavored tobacco ban. (Comment submitted via publiccomment@burlingame.org). 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 8 EXHIBIT B 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. 9 EXHIBIT B 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. 10 EXHIBIT B 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 11 EXHIBIT B • 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 12 EXHIBIT B • 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 13 EXHIBIT B 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. 14 EXHIBIT B 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 publiccomment@burlingame.org). 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. 15 EXHIBIT B 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 16 EXHIBIT B 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 17