HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2013.06.06BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
June 6, 2013
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chairperson
Dittman.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Dittman, Commissioners Hinckle and McQuaide
Absent: Commissioner Kirchner and Hunt
Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, City Attorney Kane, Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Disco and
Parks & Recreation Secretary, Borba.
MINUTES - Minutes of the May 2, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
The Commissioners received an email invitation to the Bocce Ball Court Grand Opening on Friday, June 14'1' at
11:00am.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Deborah Payne stated that the 2 Black Acacia trees at 2220 Summit Drive at the Hoover School site were not on the
Agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Business Landscape Award
Urban Bistro was selected as this year's Business Landscape Award winner with a unanimous 5-0 vote.
Commissioners Hunt and Kirchner sent in absentee votes. Commissioner Kirchner as chair of the award
will let Urban Bistro know by letter and Commissioner McQuaide will contact Dale Perkins to inform him
of the winner and get started on the watercolor.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Appeal at 2220 Summit Drive at Hoover School Site for the approved removal of two private Oak trees.
Arborist Disco presented the reasons for his recommendation of removal of the two private Oak trees at 2220
Summit Drive. During his evaluation of the trees he inspected the health and structure of the trees and the
surrounding area. The Oaks trees are estimated to be 100 years old and have had minimal maintenance
and have long excessive limb growth. Oak #1 is in fair condition. He noticed decay in Oak #2 from past
pruning cuts and the tree is in fair to poor condition.
Open Public Comment — 3 minutes to speak
Diane Haggerty, who lives across the street from the Hoover school site, spoke in favor of the appeal. She
informed the Commission there is a lawsuit against the BSD and that Oak trees provide oxygen, noise
buffers and homes for wildlife.
Christine Fitzgerald, who lives on Summit Drive and is in close proximity to Hoover school, spoke in favor of
the appeal. She informed the Commission there is a currently pending lawsuit entitled Alliance for
Responsible Neighborhood planning versus Burlingame School District, San Mateo County case #519075
and to her knowledge Burlingame School District has not elected to exempt itself from either the zoning or
the building codes of the City.
Appeal Hearing — 10 minutes to speak
Appellant Deborah Payne, who lives on Summit Drive right down the street from Hoover School, spoke in
favor of the appeal. Her appeal letter to Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad and the
Burlingame School District on May 9'h requested that the four trees remain and asked that the Arborist she
had retained be allowed to look at the trees. She was denied access. Her arborist Ralph Osterling did not
note in his letter any risk of disease, decay or danger of falling. He only mentioned possible disturbance
of the roots during construction. Ms. Payne suggested moving the drop-off and pickup away from the
trees so they can remain. She informed the Commission she was concerned about erosion, soil retention
and diversion or increased flow of surface water if the trees were removed as well as the effect the tree
removal would have on wind protection, noise, privacy, traffic and toxic fumes from vehicles and a
reduction of acorns for acorn feeders.
I" Respondent for the Burlingame School District (BSD) was Dr. Robert Clark, the assistant superintendent.
He spoke against the appeal. He informed the Commission that BSD has a long history of accommodating
trees in the path of construction and for every tree they have removed they have an agreement with the
City to replace that tree with at least one tree. The BSD continues to experience phenomenal growth in the
number of students enrolled and the Hoover School site, which was purchased in 2010, is necessary to
accommodate that growth. The BSD worked with the community to design Hoover School over the 2010-
2012 periods, including public notices, town hall meetings and open houses on site. In the spring of 2011,
BSD took action to open Hoover in 2014 as a K-5 neighborhood school. The design included a 6-car
drop-off area at the sidewalk with a left turnout onto Summit. Following CEQA review, the public
comments received expressed a concern over traffic and queuing in the street. In response to public
comment the frontage was redesigned to include 15 drop-off spaces on school property and does not
reduce the traffic space on Summit Drive. The new design was reviewed by the City of Burlingame's
traffic engineer and he concluded it was a better solution to potential traffic and queuing. The design of
the new building in the location of the old annex of Hoover required the removal of Oak tree #2. The
location of the tree is just inside the footprint of the new building. Removal of Oak #1 is only required
now with the revised drop-off plan. Dr. Clark informed the Commission the trees in their current
condition pose a danger to students and surrounding pedestrians. Following construction and the removal
of the significant root base, the risk will be even greater.
2' Respondent for the BSD was Richard Terrones, the architect for the Hoover School project. He stated that
the BSD is before the Commission because of the cooperative nature of the relationship BSD has with the
City. The BSD agreed to go through a tree removal permit process for any protected tree on the project
site. He informed the Commission that the Town of Hillsborough did not recommend the current drop off
location. BSD met with the Town of Hillsborough Engineer, the City of Burlingame Traffic Engineer and
Police representatives from both Cities on the site. There was concern about the previous drop off plan.
BSD was asked if there were other alternatives that the BSD would consider that the engineers could
support. The solution that the BSD developed was for the extended drop-off to provide fifteen spaces
along the curb similar to every other school in the BSD.
3' Respondent for the BSD was Dr. Maggie Maclsaac, District Superintendent. She informed the
Commission that the BSD had to balance making sure that our students are safe and addressing some of
the claims of the neighborhood. The new drop off area will provide an area that is safe for our students
and that also is good for the neighborhood. In her opinion when it comes to a tree remaining or student
safety, the safety of the student comes first.
Rebuttal — 2 minutes
Appellant Deborah Payne informed the Commission that her appeal letter dated May 9, 2013 indicated an
appeal for all four trees and not just two trees and that in the appeal letter she asked that her arborist be
allowed to go out and take a look at those trees and she was denied such access. She also stated that she
believed the trees need to remain and this school location is not like other schools in the community
because other schools have sidewalks and not little winding roads. She informed the Commission it is not
only about the trees but it is about overall safety in the neighborhood.
Respondent Dr. Robert Clark informed the Commission their construction schedule is moving forward and he
needed clarification on the two Acacia trees that were not part of the appeal. He stated that there was no
desire from BSD just to remove trees, but this issue is about the tree removal, not the drop-off
configuration, nor the design of the building.
Commissioner Discussion
The Commissioners discussed the appeal. They asked Arborist Disco how many trees could be replanted and
if the new Oak trees that were planted would provide acorns for acorn -dependent birds. Arborist Disco
stated that the Commission can determine the number of trees to be replanted and that 48" box size trees
will already be producing acorns.
Commissioner Hinckle made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the recommendations of Bob Disco, City
Arborist, to remove these trees based on their health and structure, the inadequate care they have received
and in consideration of the future use of this site as one of Burlingame's elementary schools, especially
given consideration of potential danger to school children, parents, etc. She also recommended that the
two Oak trees that are removed be replaced with four 48" box size trees planted in the same general area.
Commissioner McQuaide seconded the motion as read. The motion passed with Dittman and Hinckle
voting in favor and McQuaide opposed (2-1).
The decision of the Beautification Commission can be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the
Commission's action. In order to appeal, an appeal letter and $255.00 appeal fee, payable to the City of
Burlingame must be submitted to the city clerk before 5pm on the tenth calendar on June 16, 2013.
2. Appeal at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, private Sequoia Tee removal denied
Arborist Disco presented the reasons for the denial of removal of the private Sequoia tree. The tree is in good
health, well maintained and growing several feet from the patio foundation.
Open Public Comment — 3 minutes to speak
None
Appeal Hearing — 10 minutes to speak
Appellant Judith Day, property owner at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, informed the Commission that she had an
independent Arborist report done at the request of Arborist Disco. Mayne Tree reported cracking in the
patio and that roots are under the house and could damage the foundation in the future. The house
foundation is unreinforced. Tree roots have affected her neighbor's driveway and foundation also. Day
also stated that the Sequoia trees are huge and are inappropriate in a residential area. She asked the
Commission to grant her permission to remove the tree. She felt it was unconscionable to wait until the
tree breaks up the foundation before she would be allowed to remove the tree.
Commissioner Discussion
The Commission discussed the appeal. The Commission expressed concern about losing big trees in
Burlingame when they had not yet damaged a foundation.
Commissioner McQuaide made a motion to deny the appeal and deny removal based on the aesthetic value of
the Sequoia tree 1261 Cabrillo Avenue and based on the Arborist's report stating that the tree is healthy.
Chair Dittman seconded the motion as read. The motion passed, with McQuaide and Dittman in favor and
Hinckle apposed (2-1).
The decision of the Beautification Commission can be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the
Commission's action. In order to appeal, an appeal letter and $255.00 appeal fee, payable to the City of
Burlingame must be submitted to the city clerk before 5pm on the tenth calendar on June 16, 2013.
3. Cancellation of July 4, 2013 Beautification Commission Meeting
The Meeting was rescheduled for Tuesday, July 2, 2013.
REPORTS
1. Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Disco
1. Bocce Ball Court Grand Opening Friday, June 141h
2. Parking lot paving project at Cuernavaca is complete.
3. City planted and double staked 8 Elm trees on El Camino Real for Caltrans.
3. Commissioner Dittman
None
4. Commissioner Hinckle
Commissioner Hinckle would like to address the pots on Broadway at a future meeting.
5. Commissioner Kirchner
Absent
6. Commissioner McQuaide
Commissioner McQuaide stated that on Broadway the first Sunday of every month she picks up trash,
prunes, plants, feeds and waters.
7. Commissioner Hunt
Absent
The next Beautification Commission meeting is July 2, 2013. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned
at 9:02 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Gina Borba
Recording Secretary