Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2017.11.02BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Approved Minutes November 2, 2017 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Commissioner Hinckle. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hinckle, Kearney, and Dinuri Absent: Commissioner Hunt and Kirchner Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Disco, City Attorney Kane and Recording Secretary Borba Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Kearney noted on page 2 of the minutes under the appeal the vote was 4-1 and should note Commissioner Hunt was the one opposed. Commissioner Dinuri made a motion to approve the September 7, 2017 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kearney and unanimously approved. CORRESPONDENCE An additional packet of information from the Appellant regarding the appeal at 1555 Alturas Drive. The art rendering of the Business Landscape Award watercolor from Dale Perkins was given to the Commissioners. PUBLIC COMMENT None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. Appeal to the Denial to Remove a Cedar Tree at 1555 Alturas Drive Director Glomstad read the staff report regarding the denial to remove a Cedar tree at 1555 Alturas Drive. Commissioner Dinuri inquired if trimming the Cedar would help reduce the pollen. Arborist Disco responded that the Cedar is an evergreen and doesn't grow fast, thinning and reducing the foliage would reduce the pollen. Commission Kearney inquired about how often the tree should be trimmed. Arborist Disco stated if the tree were trimmed now it would not have to be done again for 6 to 7 years. Commissioner Dinuri asked if Cedar trees create a lot of pollen. Arborist Disco stated they do. Public Comment Helaine Darling, a resident of Burlingame inquired about the criteria Arborist Disco looks at when inspecting a private tree for removal. Arborist Disco stated the criteria were based on the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance 11.06 and there were seven points that were considered 11.06.060(d)(1-7) when the decision was made. Ms. Darling stated that the tree is near the adjacent property and both parties wanted the tree removed. Ms. Darling also inquired about the economic consequences to the appellant. Arborist Disco stated that it referred to the financial impact put upon the owner of the tree. Ms. Darling commented on the ongoing problem for her neighbor for many years and to consider what was more important, the tree or being healthy. She said that she hoped the Commission would make some accommodation for the removal of the Cedar tree. Bruce Carlton, a resident of Burlingame stated that the appellant took very good care of their landscaping but that the tree is full of pollen, which gets on the cars and windows need to be shut at certain times of the year otherwise pollen gets in the house. He also said that the pollen has created a health issue for the appellant and it impacts her quality of life. Since the ordinance assigned priority based on hazard, he said that it is a hazard to the appellant's health. Mr. Carlton supported the removal of the tree. Linda Carlton, a resident of Burlingame, stated that we are bound by so many rules and regulations and sometimes they don't make sense. The tree is huge and omits a lot of pollen and questioned whether the appellant should have to suffer for the rest of her life due to the fact the pollen is making her ill. She asked that the Commission use common sense and not make a person's health suffer to save a tree. Mary Herman, a resident of Burlingame, stated that it has been very painful to watch the appellant get sicker and sicker from the pollen on the tree. She knows how much the trees mean but she believes the appellant's health is more important. She hoped the Commission would approve the removal and replacement of the tree. Appellant Anne Nannini, a resident at 1555 Alturas Drive, stated she included as much information as she could in the packet. The Cedar tree was trimmed 4 years ago and 5 years prior to that. The tree is growing at a faster pace than ever before and is massive. She said that trimming it back to stop the pollen will make it look like a stump. Ms. Nannini stated they she would do whatever is asked regarding planting replacement trees if the Commission approved removal. Dave Nannini noted the tree is a fire issue that has been discussed with City Arborist Disco. Commission Discussion Commissioner Kearney inquired about the allergy testing in 2005 and asked if the appellant had had any additional testing. The Appellant respond she had not, she is allergic to pollen and it has just become worse, the pollen comes through the windows, on their dog, shoes and clothing. The Appellant takes medication two to three times a week and finds it is worse when it is windy out. Commissioner Dinuri inquired about, the last time the tree was trimmed if the pollen was as bad. The appellant responded it has gotten worse every year for the last 4 years and she doesn't know why. Commissioner Hinckle asked staff to clarify whether the City Arborist is able to approve removal of the Cedar tree due to personal health issues. Arborist Disco responded that the decision was based on the ordinance. Commissioner Dinuri stated that she has concerns about the pollen but she is also concerned that the appellant could trim the tree first to see if that makes a difference before removal is approved. Commissioner Kearney reported the tree looked magnificent and is a heathy tree. Commissioner Hinckle stated all the neighbors had concerns regarding the appellant's health and all agreed on removal and replacement of the Cedar. Commissioner Hinckle inquired if the tree was trimmed, would it have a significant impact on the pollen production in the future. Arborist Disco stated it would reduce some of the pollen due to less foliage but it would be ongoing and, the tree can be trimmed up to 1/3 of the crown without a permit. Commissioner Kearney moved to deny the appeal because the tree is healthy, has been well maintained and is structurally sound and does not meet the criteria for removal based on Chapter 11.06.050(d) (7) of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. Commissioner Dinuri seconds the motion. Motion passed 2-1 (Hinckle). 2. Kathleen Kane, City Attorney Presentation, Conflicts and Open Government Issues City Attorney Kane addressed the Commission on the issue of recusals. When the Commission is making decisions that may affect an individual's property rights, Commissioners need to closely look to see if they have a conflict that would require them not to participate in the hearing. The Fair Political Practices Commission has expanded the reasons why a commissioner might have to recuse themselves. City Attorney Kane stated that if a Commissioner is uncertain she is available to answer any questions regarding when to recuse. City Attorney Kane also addressed the Commission regarding a new decision involving Public Records Access. She said that it is very important that Commissioners use their City email for City business. If Commissioners are using private email or texting on City business, then your personal devises will need to be accessed for information during a public records request. 3. Commissioner Rotation Commissioner Hinckle accepted the Beautification Commission Chair position, Commissioner Kirchner, Vice Chair and Commissioner Kearney, Secretary. The Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Chair will be an agenda item and discussed at the next meeting. REPORTS 1. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Arborist Disco reported the City will be removing 5 Eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue and 4 Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive. The bid goes out November 3rd and the bid opening will be November 17`h. The replacement Eucalyptus trees have been ordered and will be planted after the removals are complete. The Parks Division planted 139 street trees during the October planting. 2. Director Glomstad None 3. Commissioner Hunt None 4. Commissioner Hinckle Commissioner Hinckle inquired about the Business Landscape Award presentation at Council. Commissioner Dinuri reported it went well and was very nice. 5. Commissioner Kirchner None 6. Commissioner Kearney Commissioner Kearney requested that when correspondence is received by staff after the packet has gone out, if staff would email it instead of waiting to give it out at the meeting. She also requested that the Chair identify the Appellant at the beginning of an appeal. 7. Commissioner Dinuri Commissioner Dinuri inquired about the big yellow fungus she is seeing on trees. Arborist Disco reported it is Sulfur Fungus and is usually found on Eucalyptus trees. He reported it is a common fungus and usually indicates there is decay. Commission Dinuri inquired about public art. Director Glomstad stated there is no designated funding for public art at this time. The next Beautification Commission meeting is December 7, 2017. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:02 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Administrative Staff