HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2015.03.05BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
March 5, 2015
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chairperson
Kirchner.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chairperson Kirchner, Commissioners Hunt, and Dittman
Absent: Commissioner McQuaide and Hinckle
Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, City Arborist/Park Supervisor Disco and Recording Secretary
Borba.
MINUTES
Minutes of the February 5, 2015 meeting were approved.
CORRESPONDENCE
1. Joint study session with Council scheduled for Monday, May 4, 2015 at 6:OOpm at City Hall.
2. Additional correspondence regarding "Theme Blocks."
3. P&R and Beautification Commissioner Workshop scheduled for Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 9am.
4. Correspondence from Appellant at 1354 Cortez Avenue — February BBC Meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT
1. Linda Ryan, a resident on Drake Avenue, inquired about the Mills Canyon trees that were topped.
2. Pat Giorni, a resident on Balboa, stated on El Camino Real, Rosedale and Peninsula Hospital property the
pedestrian bicycle project has a tree limb across the path that needs to be trimmed. She also wanted the City
to be aware that the bridge in Mills Canyon needs to be replaced.
OLD BUSINESS
1.2015 Business Landscape Award
Commissioner Hunt will prepare a statement for the eNews.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Theme Blocks
Arborist Disco presented the staff report.
Commission Discussion - Commissioner Dittman stated that a letter was sent out to everyone who lives on a
themed block on February 20, 2015 regarding this issue.
Public Comment — Pat Giorni, a resident on Balboa, spoke in favor of keeping the policy as is. She
mentioned that prior to the policy the tree replacement planting made no sense. When Commission approved
the Theme Block policy, they believed street trees were considered City infrastructure and infrastructure is
decided by the City and not residents. She feels you shouldn't be able to change a block if it is in the middle
of a street that has many blocks of themed streets.
Susan Castner Payne, a resident on Concord, spoke in favor of keeping the policy as is. She felt that when
the trees leaf out it looks like a cathedral and is beautiful and that a mix of trees looks shabby. Residents don't
have the talent or background to choose trees.
Susie Lahey, a resident on Easton, was a BBC Commissioner when the themed street policy came up. She felt
that there were many discussions on trees and the value of trees to homeowners. The City does a fabulous job
of maintaining street trees. Theme streets are very clear and it looks beautiful. A lot of thought and work
went into creating this policy. She understands wanting to have a process to change that. Theme streets add
ambiance and our canopy makes us special. She would like to see more streets volunteer to become theme
blocks.
Steven Lamont, a resident on Adeline, attended the meeting because he received the letter sent out. He is in
favor of theme blocks, but along one side of Adeline because of utility poles there is constant pruning that
makes the trees look stubby.
Victor Richmond, a resident on Balboa, has all different kinds of trees on his block. He doesn't think a theme
exists. His block does not meet the definition.
Laura Hesselgren, a resident on Bayswater spoke in favor of themed blocks. She mentioned that it is so
beautiful with all the bright colors at certain times of the year on the theme side of her house. She encouraged
Commission to continue with theme blocks and not allow one block in the middle of a theme street to change
because it would distract from the beauty of the theme blocks.
Jennifer Pfaff, a resident on Bayswater, is in favor of theme blocks. She gave a brief history of species of
trees by block in Burlingame. Long established tree patterns started to degrade by the 1990's. She became
alarmed at what was not only the visual degradation of her own block but of her neighborhood. For a City
long known as the City of Trees, Burlingame's streets were losing their integrity of design at an alarming rate.
She mentioned that much effort went into designing this policy in 2007 to 2008. She said she is opposed to
changing a 7-year young policy because of the unintended consequences that a short-term decision can have
on a longer -term investment of time and recourses necessary for the establishment and/or restoration of trees
and tree patterns. She said she felt it should be the City Arborist, who deals with the City trees to make the
determination that a certain species has become inappropriate for Burlingame. She said that street trees are
part of the City's infrastructure and belong to all people and when the planting patterns are changed, we end up
with a mixed and matched mess. She suggested that those residents who have preferences for various types
of trees that may not happen to be designated street trees plant them on their own property.
Luis Amador, a resident on Bayswater, has a Magnolia in front of his home that shouldn't be there, he can't
get solar with so much shade, it's growing into the power lines, he has had broken windshields from falling
branches and it is a safety issue due to dropping fruit and lifted sidewalks. He said that it's a great tree; it's
just in the wrong location.
Rebecca Haslou, a resident on Stanley, didn't know she was on a theme block. She understands trees getting
disease and on her block the trees had aphids that spread from tree to tree. She appreciates living on a theme
street.
Tom Payne, a resident on Concord, spoke in favor of theme blocks. "What we're trying to develop is a
neighborhood with cohesive character. The City should encourage blocks to become theme blocks, it is
welcoming and presents a beautiful image."
Russ Cohen, a resident on Lexington, is in favor of theme blocks. He said it encourages the mono culture idea
and there might be exceptions but it should be made difficult to breakout of a theme block.
Commission Discussion — Commissioner Hunt lives on a theme street, she thinks it's beautiful and we have to
have an answer as to what tree is put back in after removal.
Commissioner Dittman stated we have a set of themed and non -theme blocks. It takes 2/3 of homeowners to
agree and it becomes a theme block as the policy is now. The proposal is if 2/3 of the block agree, a tree
theme can be removed from the theme block, but no trees will be removed at that time. A theme block can
still have a mixture of trees because the trees that are healthy stay and when the City replaces a dead tree the
existing trees remain.
Arborist Disco agreed that establishing a policy to remove a theme block does not mean any trees would be
removed.
Commissioner Kirchner stated he lives on a theme block. He recommends to City Council that there be a
vehicle to modify the policy to give the opportunity to remove a theme block. He doesn't think it would
change much and it would take 2/3's majority to remove a theme block.
Arborist Disco stated in 2008 the criteria for a theme block was if the block had 50% or more of the same
variety of trees on it, it became a themed block. You can add a theme block without 50% of the trees being the
same specie by following the policy of having 2/3 of the residents in agreement.
Commissioner Dittman stated if some of the larger older trees have to be removed on a theme block, the
City would replace with the same tree, it would be younger and smaller and that would change the canopy and
look of the themed block.
Commissioner Dittman moved that the Beautification Commission modify the Theme Block policy to propose
revisions that provide for a process to modify or to opt out of being a Themed Block with 75% of the
homeowners on the block in agreement. Commissioner Kirchner seconded the motion and the motion passed
3-0.
2. Appeal at 2300 Davis Drive — Regarding the Illegal Removal of a Private Magnolia Tree
Arborist Disco presented the staff report.
Commission Discussion — Commissioner Dittman stated that all that is on the permit is the tree near the
electrical box. Then in the letter that came back from the homeowners, they had a tree service look at the
Magnolia and said it was a serious safety concern, was under sized and no permit would be necessary for
removal. Commissioner Kirchner stated that whether or not the fine is charged we will still get 2-24" box size
trees. Arborist Disco reported there were two trees removed so two trees will have to be planted as
replacement.
Public Comment — None
Appellant — Jun Chin and his wife Allison moved into the house last summer on Davis Drive. One of the first
things that had to be done was upgrade the electrical box. The PG&E contractor said the tree near the box
would have to be removed. So they submitted a permit to the City then found a licensed tree contractor. The
contractor said another tree in the back yard, the Magnolia tree is getting into the foundation of the house.
Attachment #1 picture, taken after the tree was taken down, shows there is a large crack in the patio. The
contractor said the tree has to be removed or it will cause serious damage to the foundation and that it is
undersized. Allison the homeowner called Gina in the Parks office to confirm and Gina left her a message.
The homeowner thought that both trees were on the permit. He received a letter approving removal on
December 15, 2014 of the Pittosporum and thought that the Magnolia tree was undersize so he could remove
both trees. He made a consistent effort not to break the rules. He respectfully asked the commission to revoke
the penalty.
Commission Discussion — Commissioner Hunt asked the name of the tree company. The appellant
Responded Firefighters Tree Service; they are a license contractor in San Mateo. He was told by the
contractor that the tree was a single stem and undersized. Commission Hunt stated that a license tree
contractor should know that the tree was of protected size. Commissioner Dittman stated one of the issues on
the permit is it never said anything about the Magnolia. The big Magnolia in the backyard was never on this
permit. When this permit was submitted it only asked for the Pittospourum. Commissioner Kirchner stated
the Pittosporum was removed because of PG&E, the contractor said the Magnolia was too close to the
foundation and had nothing to do with PG&E. Arborist Disco stated that the schematic drawing submitted with
the permit only shows one tree. When he went out to the property and saw the Magnolia was gone he asked
the contractor why the tree was removed and he said the homeowner told him he had a permit. The
homeowner thought the roots were getting into the foundation so they removed the Magnolia. When
submitting the permit they said they needed the tree removed promptly next to the PG&E box. The letter
approving removal of the Pittosporum only had one tree on it. Commissioner Hunt stated that the tree
company should have seen the permit before removing the trees.
Commissioner Hunt moved to deny the appeal, and impose the fine of $4,800.00 and require at least 2-24" box
size trees be planted on the property. Commissioner Dittman seconded the motion and the motion passed 3-0.
Appeal at 1529 Bernal Avenue Retarding the Approval to Remove a Private Oak Tree
Arborist Disco presented the staff report.
Commissioner Discussion - Commissioner Hunt stated the tree is growing toward the light to the west and at
some point the tree is going to fall over the garage.
Commissioner Dittman said the Planning
Commission stated the building permit required having someone there when pruning the roots.
Arborist Disco stated in his project comments he noticed that the tree was in the site plan, but there was no
remediation for the tree during the construction on the house. He noted on the Planning comment sheet that if
the tree were going to remain an on -site arborist would need to be present for any root pruning. A few months
later the property owners submitted a Private Tree Removal Permit with an independent arborist report stating
the tree was dependent on the garage foundation on one side for support, and that the roots did not grow
toward the foundation. Arborist Disco felt this should have been brought up during the plan review process.
Commissioner Hunt asked what could be done to protect the tree and keep it from falling on the garage on the
other side of the easement. Arborist Disco said there are many ways to support the tree if you want to invest
the money. Commissioner Kirchner inquired if the homeowner is required to plant a replacement tree on the
property. The plan has a tree in the back right corner and a Pittosporum next to the garage, which was
required for the building construction. An additional tree is to be planted for the Private Protected Tree
Removal Permit.
Public Comment - None
Appellant — Katie Wiseman a resident on Vancouver stated that Oaks are very special to her. She is
protesting the removal of the Oak tree. It is very surprising to her that a City Planner can go forward and not
include a tree in the plans and then later after part of the structure is removed, try to remove the tree by saying
it has become a hazard so it needs to be removed. She mentioned there is a lot of new growth on the tree and
the neighbors on the other side where the tree leans towards also don't want the tree removed. The tree
provides significant privacy from the house and backyard. Removal would significantly impact her privacy.
Commissioner Discussion — Commissioner Dittman stated trees planted to screen can lose their leaves for a
couple of months. Commissioner Hunt asked is it possible to remove part of the tree and preserve some of it.
Arborist Disco said yes, the tree is going all one way and it can be trimmed back to encourage growth on the
other side. Commissioner Kirchner stated if we keep the tree it provides privacy but there is some risk.
Commissioner Dittman stated the trees on the plans are not set in stone it is just a plan. Arborist
Disco said an option maybe to plant a bigger size than a 24' box size tree with a larger canopy and keep the
Oak tree for now, trim the tree and then it can be removed in the future. Commissioner Dittman liked the idea
of planting a larger tree and re-establishing privacy as well as keeping the Oak and trimming the lower co -
dominant leader and then re -assessing the Oak at a later time.
Commissioner Dittman moved to uphold the appeal and allow the tree to remain since it provides privacy for
the surrounding neighbors. The removal of the lower co -dominant leader will need to be trimmed for safety
and required 1 — 36" box evergreen tree, that is fast growing with a large canopy replace the Pittosporum on
the plans. Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion and all were in favor.
Motion passed 3-0.
REPORTS
1. Parks Supervisor/City Arborist
Arborist Disco thanked the commissioner who attended the Arbor Day Ceremonies.
2. Parks & Recreation Director
None
I Commissioner Kirchner
None
4. Commissioner Hinckle
None
5. Commissioner McQuaide
None
6. Commissioner Hunt
None
7. Commissioner Dittman
Commissioner Dittman inquired about a Monterey Pine tree #19 on Easton and Cortez. Arborist
Disco reported the tree is dead and coming down. PG&E needs to remove a wire off the tree first.
She also asked about the removal of 4 trees on Paloma and Broadway. Arborist Disco reported that
the trees were removed per Public Works to install solar panels to power the crosswalk lights.
The next Beautification Commission meeting is April 2, 2015. There being no further business, the meeting
adjourned at 9:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Oa XoJa
Gina Borba
Recording Secretary
4