Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2011.06.02BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION June 2, 2011 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 pm. by Chairperson N�I McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Carney, Dittman, Hinckle, Hunt, and Wright Absent: Commissioner Lahey Staff. Supervisor Disco and Administrative Secretary Harvey Guests: Brian Benn (1408 DeSoto Avenue) and Fernando and Geraldine Realyvasquez (1411 Vancouver Avenue) MINUTES Minutes of the May 5, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Letter and related correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. F. Realyvasquez of, 1411 Vancouver Avenue, appealing the permitted removal of a Black Acacia in the rear easement behind 1408 DeSoto Avenue. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. Order of the agenda was changed to accommodate those in attendance for the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS Appeal Regards the Approved Removal of One Black Acacia Tree (in the easement behind) 1408 DeSoto Avenue Supervisor Disco reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission and clarified that the protected sized tree is located in a utility easement; the easement is not owned by the City and is the maintenance responsibility of property owners on either side, typically to the center of the easement. Approval was granted to the property owner of 1408 DeSoto Avenue because a site inspection conducted by Supervisor Disco revealed that the tree had been reduced and topped to clear electrical lines, has poor structure (limbs growing at irregular angles), has co -dominant leaders with included bark, and that Black Acacias have a high rate of limb failure due to poor attachment and or root failure. After receiving notification of the removal, the property owners at 1411 Vancouver Avenue appealed the decision because the tree provides a visual green screen around the utility pole and wires as viewed from their property at 1411 Vancouver Avenue. Commissioner Hunt stated she would recuse herself from this item because of her acquaintance with the appellant's brother. Commissioner Dittman asked for clarification regarding maintenance responsibility in easements between properties. Supervisor Disco explained that non City owned easements are the maintenance responsibility of property owners on either side of the easement, typically to the center. Commissioner Dittman noted she saw a pink dot on the base of the tree and asked Supervisor Disco what that might indicate. Supervisor Disco responded that P.G.&E. routinely marks trees scheduled for trimming and/or removal. Chairperson McQuaide asked if Supervisor Disco's report had been made before he had seen the other reports from tree companies. Supervisor Disco stated that his report was done as part of the initial permit process, that the reports from the other companies were received later and submitted with the appeal from the property owner at 1411 Vancouver Avenue. Commissioner Carney asked if a replacement tree would be required. Supervisor Disco stated no, that the property has trees and it is City policy that trees not be planted in utility easements. Chairperson McQuaide asked the age of the Black Acacia. Supervisor Disco responded approximately 20 years old or more. Commissioner Carney asked Supervisor Disco to clarify that this tree is definitely a problem. Supervisor Disco responded that in his opinion the tree is a problem because the tree has co -dominant limbs and leaders, has been topped by P.G.& E. and has never been maintained. Chairperson McQuaide opened public hearing and recognized the applicant, Brian Benn of 1408 DeSoto Avenue. NEW BUSINESS — (Contd.) Appeal Regarding the Approved Removal of One Black Acacia Tree (in the easement behind) 1408 DeSoto Avenue — (Coutd.) Mr. Benn, 1408 DeSoto Avenue, submitted his report to the Commission stating he had applied for the permit to remove the tree because the Black Acacia tree is an invasive tree, is in a bad and unsafe condition, and is preventing enjoyment and improvement of his property, adding his neighbor at 1412 DeSoto Avenue supports removal. Mr. Benn then submitted a detailed report and reviewed with the Commission. The report included information from the California Invasive Plant Council (with regard to the Black Acacia specie); pictures (as viewed from both properties) of the tree and utility pole in the easement; pictures of the "unsafe condition" of the tree; reasons the tree is preventing enjoyment or improvement of his yard, i.e., 1) danger due to proximity of wires, 2) tree overhanging most of yard, 3) wife is allergic to Black Acacia, and 4) relandscaping cannot be considered because of root suckers and the large volume of debris produced by the tree. Mr. Benn stated the appellant from 1411 Vancouver submitted "proposals" from tree companies, not "assessments", and that one company recommended "support systems, cables or braces, to manage a poor attachment". Mr. Benn concluded that the "proposals" fail to address the important points: 1) the potential cost to maintain and manage the tree, and 2) the potential for liability for damage from tree failure. Mr. Benn concluded that he maintains the trees on his property: 2 Maple trees, 3 Tibouchinas, 1 massive Deodar Cedar, and 1 mature Yucca tree, but does not want to bear the safety liability of this tree or the cost. He added he wants all his landscaping to be nice and believes both his property and his neighbor's property at 1411 Vancouver Avenue would benefit from the tree removal because both yards would receive more sun. Commissioner Hinckle asked Mr. Benn if he had spoken to a landscaper; Mr. Benn responded that he had. Chairperson McQuaide asked if the Cedar tree dropped as much debris as the Black Acacia; Mr. Benn responded, not as much but has had an arborist maintain the Cedar tree. Chairperson McQuaide asked what P.G.&E. representatives told him about the tree. Mr. Benn responded that P.G.&E. is concerned with growth near the high voltage lines; since the "uneven" part of the tree is near the lower wattage lines, P.G.&E. would not remove or trim that portion. Chairperson McQuaide then recognized appellant Fernando Realyvasquez, 1411 Vancouver Avenue. Mr. Realyvasquez stated that when Mr. Benn first approached him regarding the possible removal of the tree, Mr. Benn was primarily concerned about his wife's allergies. He stated to Mr. Benn that he would need to discuss the tree removal with his wife because the screen meant a lot to her. He was then surprised when notification of the proposed removal was received because they had not had any further discussion with their neighbor. Mr. Realyvasquez then submitted photos of the tree as seen from his back yard, stating: • The screen from this tree blocks the pole and the lines as viewed from his home. • The tree had not been an issue for the last 6 years. • Removal of this tree would not eliminate the allergies because another Black Acacia is only 10 feet away. • Co -dominant limbs are manageable and would be willing to split the cost of maintenance with his neighbor. • The tree should remain because it provides a screen from the pole/lines and can be made safe. Mrs. Realyvasquez stated she and her husband believe everyone should be able to enjoy their back yard and was surprised how much of the tree is on her neighbor's side. P.G.&E. has always lopped off the limbs but the tree masks the ugliness of the pole. She added that when she contacted Davey Tree Company and Mayne Tree Company she asked them to assess the tree, whether it should be maintained or removed. She did not inform them that this was part of an appeal because she wanted a "clean" assessment. She stated the co -dominant trunk was mentioned in the assessments and was noted as a flaw, but that cables or braces and pruning and maintaining was recommended to make the tree safe. W Chairperson McQuaide closed the public hearing. NEW BUSINESS — (Contd.) Appeal Retardine the Approved Removal of One Black Acacia Tree (in the easement behind) 1408 DeSoto Avenue — (Contd.) Commissioner Hinkle stated that in addition to shifting the attention away from the pole, the tree provides a big hit of green to the area She noted most of the trees on the property at 1408 DeSoto Avenue are situated in the front of the property. Chairperson McQuaide stated it is a big tree but not causing any damage to sidewalks or dripping on cars. The tree is a habitat for birds, but P.G.& E. has "unflatteringly" pruned the tree. She added that there are not many mature trees on DeSoto Avenue and believes the tree would do well with proper pruning and care on a regular basis. Chairperson McQuaide added she wished the neighbors could cooperate more with each other to resolve the issue. Commissioner Dittman stated that if the tree were removed, the view of the pole/lines would be bad from both homes. She noted that if the tree were pruned or lowered rather than removed, you would still see the poles/lines. Commissioner Dittman asked if a replacement tree could be required. Supervisor Disco stated there were no replacement requirements because the tree is in the easement and the property at 1408 DeSoto Avenue is well forested. Commissioner Carney stated she would like to see the neighbors work together to save the tree. Commissioner Dittman asked if the Commission's decision could be appealed to Council. Staff responded yes, that anyone could appeal the Commission's decision to Council. Commissioner Wright thanked and complimented both property owners on their presentations, but agreed with Chairperson McQuaide that the tree could be pruned and maintained. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved to uphold the appeal, because the tree provides a screen from the utility poll but with the recommendation that the tree be maintained by mutual agreement of the property owners as recommended by an independent arborist; seconded; Hinckle. Motion carried 5 in favor, 1 recused/Hunt, and I absendLahey. Administrative Secretary Harvey stated that the applicants, appellants, and adjacent properties would be notified in writing of the Commission's decision, and procedures to appeal this decision to Council would be included. OLD BUSINESS 2011 Landscape Award Selection Commissioner Dittman stated that the Committee reviewed all sites and all criteria had been met. Commissioners commented on each of the six sites nominated. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that Crosby & Gray be selected as the award recipient because of its consistency, and that it's calming, beautiful, and dignified plantings serve as a "greeter" to those entering Burlingame on the southern end of Burlingame; seconded, Hinckle. The vote was split 3 - 3; motion failed Commissioner Hunt then moved that Il Fornaio be selected as the award recipient because it's landscaping has been established for many years, it is consistently charming with an inviting exterior, and makes the most with the area; seconded, Dittman. Motion carried: 4 in favor, 2 opposed, I absentlLahey. Commissioner Wright stated she would notify artist, Dale Perkins, so he could begin his work. New Beautification Commission Meeting "Start Time" (a), 6:30 PM Administrative Secretary Harvey reported that there was no opposition to the time change, that the public would be notified through the City ENEWS, and that the time change would begin July 2011. NEW BUSINESS New Street Tree Inventory Summary Supervisor Disco reported on the data collection of the 16,250 public trees in the City of Burlingame. The project was a matched grant provided by CALFIRE and the data collected by Davey Resource will be installed in the new online street tree management system. The presentation to Council by Davey Resource, scheduled for Monday nights Council meeting, was postponed until a future meeting. 2011 Broadway Pet Parade Participation (September) Commissioner Hinckle is reviewing costume possibilities for the Commission to participate in this year's parade and will report back to the Commission at the next scheduled meeting. Consider Cancellation of July 7, 2011 Meeting Due to lack of business and vacation schedules, it was a consensus of the Commission that the July 7t° meeting be cancelled and the next regularly scheduled meeting would be held on August 4, 2011 at 6:30 pm. REPORTS — Staff None Commissioner Wright Commisssioner Wright stated she noticed that some nice new shrubs and bushes had been planted on the eastside of California Drive (south of Broadway). Commissioner Dittman Commissioner Dittman reported she had sent a condolence card on behalf of the Commission to Dale Perkins in the recent passing of his wife, Evie. Commissioner Dittman asked Supervisor Disco if the required tree replacement on the 1800 block of Easton would be planted. Supervisor Disco responded that the City Attorney had confirmed that the time for appeal had expired ~ for the property owner, and that the replacement tree is to be planted in the City planter strip as per the Commission's ruling. Commissioner Elinckle Commissioner Hinckle showed the Commission a Street Sweeping map and schedule for street sweeping in the City of Burlingame. Commisssioner Hinkle reported she is investigating the possibility of the City of Burlingame consider residents moving cars parked on the street, like some other cities do, for street sweeping purposes. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, X av"W XCru W Recording Secretary "\ 4