Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2008.06.05BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION DUNE 5, 2008 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Carney. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Carney, Benson, Ellis (arrived @ 6:05p), Grandcolas, Lahey (arrived @ 6:05p), and McQuaide Absent: Commissioner Wright Staff. Interim Parks Superintendent Foell, Supervisor Disco, Arborist Porter, and Admin. Secretary Harvey Guests: Susan Raffo (1309 Castillo), Karen & Gil Borgardt (17 Clarendon), Beth & John Ailanjian (2504 Easton) Elizabeth Watson & George Martin (2305 Poppy), Raul Nicho (2500 Easton), and Jennifer Pfaff (615 Bayswater) MINUTES — The minutes of the April 3, 2008 Beautification Commission were approved as corrected to read: 1) Meeting was "called to order at 6.00 p.m. " 2) Pg. 3, (5`h paragraph/bullet point #2) under Old Business/Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/ Planting Policies: Parks Division Staff will not create "themed" streets but the majority ofproperty owners on a block may petition to have a "themed" street, choosing from the appropriate street tree list. 3) Pg. 3, (last paragraph) under Old Business/Proposed Changes to the Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies: Ms. Pfaff asked Supervisor Disco to assess the Accolade Elm and Zelkova for planting strips less than 6' and to reassess the purchasing availability of the Frontier Elm'. Supervisor Disco responded that he would further research the possibility of planting Elms and Zelkova's in smaller planting strips and would also check into the current availability of the Frontier Elm'. 4) Pg. 1, under Old Business/Business Landscape Award Election: Commissioner Lahey reported that the Landscape Award Committee received two nominations .... There being no further corrections to the May 1, 2008 commission meeting minutes, the minutes were approved as corrected. CORRESPONDENCE Staff Report to Commission dated April 23, 2008 re: Street Tree Planting Plan submitted by Parks Superintendent Richmond Amended Street Tree Policy Proposal submitted by Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff Direction and Action, May 1, 2008 document submitted by Pat Giorm and Jennifer Pfaff Proposed revised Official Street Tree List dated April 2008 submitted by Parks Supervisor Email correspondence dated May 2, 2008 from Elizabeth Watson (2305 Poppy Dr.) re: Proposed Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies Email correspondence dated May 25, 2008 from Shirley Eigenbrot re: Proposed Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies Staff Report to Council dated May 13, 2008 re: Report on the Beautification Commission's Meeting and Recommendation for the Plan to have Streets with Themed Trees submitted by Parks & Recreation Director Randy Schwartz Memorandum to Commission dated May 27, 2008 re: Revised Street Tree List Correspondence dated May 22, 2008 from James Peters (18 Bloomfield) re: Proposed Street Tree Selection/Planting Policies Letters and related documents related to the Appeal of the Approval for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees @ 2504 Easton Drive — Burlingame Copy of article in the January 2003, Journal of Arboriculture: A Benefit -Cost Analysis of Ten Street Tree Species in Modesto, California, U.S., by E. Gregory McPherson, submitted by Jennifer Pfaff FROM THE FLOOR Jennifer Pfaff (615 Bayswater) commented on the abstract Benefit -Cost Analysis of Ten Street Tree Species ..., that some trees that grow fast such as ornamental pear trees are amongst the poorest selections of street trees and are not long lived, whereas slower growers such as London Plane trees and Gingko trees are better suited as street trees, requiring less maintenance, and living longer. Chairman Carney changed the order of the agenda to accommodate the appellants present. NEW BUSINESS Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of a Private Live Oak Tree (a) 15 Clarendon Road (nearest to the property at 17 Clarendon Road) — Arborist Porter reviewed and reported to the Commission that the original application from the property owner, submitted in February of 2008, requested removal of all 3 Live Oak trees on the property. The application was denied because the request was only based on "future" building plans. Subsequently, plans were submitted to the Building Department in March of 2008. Arborist Porter stated he then approved removal of the Live Oak tree (41) for the new garage and driveway, and the removal of Live Oak tree (#2) because too many roots would need to be cut as part of the proposed construction. Arborist Porter stated that following the approval, two letters were received from property owners at 17 & 18 Clarendon Road appealing the decision and requesting the removal of Live Oak tree (0) instead of the middle Live Oak tree (#2), because the #3 Oak tree shades the property at 17 Clarendon Road, deprives the garden area of sunlight, causing difficulty in growing vegetables. A letter from 18 Bloomfield was also received appealing the decision, but instead, requests that the Live Oak tree (#2) and the Live Oak tree (0) remain for canopy and balance issues. Additionally, a letter from #10 Bloomfield was received and requests that at least one of the Live Oak trees remain on the property. Following the Commissions review with Arborist Porter, Commissioner McQuaide asked if the plans had been approved by the Planning Commission. Arborist Porter stated that until the completion of the appeal process had been met with regard to the trees, the plans for the project would not move forward. Chairperson Carney then opened the hearing to public comment. is Gil Borgardt (appellant), 17 Clarendon Road, stated that the trees are too close to each other and there is no room on the property for all 3 trees to remain. He stated that the # 1 Oak tree has an iron grill embedded in it and that there is wire in the 43 tree; he would like the #2 Oak tree to remain but would like the #3 tree to be removed instead, or at the least, the plan to include that the #3 Live Oak tree be pruned so it doesn't come over his property. Commissioner Ellis asked Arborist Porter if the #2 Oak tree was in the way of the proposed project. Arborist Porter confirmed that the #2 Oak tree is too close to the footprint of the proposed garage. Commissioner Lahey stated that there are not many tall trees in the neighborhood or between the back yards. She stated that she would not want to see all 3 or possibly even 2 trees removed on this property, but acknowledged that the trees are too close. She concluded, that if the 43 Oak Tree was pruned and thinned nicely, the appellant would still have light to his garden, and the neighbor at 18 Bloomfield would still have some canopy. Following the discussion, Commissioner Benson moved to uphold the denial of the removal of the #3 Oak tree, because the drip line of the tree does not reach over the property at 17 Clarendon Road, is viable despite being neglected, and adds canopy to the neighborhood; seconded Motion carried 6 — 0 —1 (absent/Wright). Chairperson Carney thanked the appellant and advised of appeal procedures. Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees in the Back Yard na 2504 Easton Drive — Arborist Porter reported that in April 2008 an application was received to remove 3 Redwood trees located in the back yard due to roots of the trees invading the yard. Approval for the removal of the #2 Redwood tree (in the middle of the yard) was granted because he believed it was the tree causing most of the root damage on the property, but denied the removal of the 2 outside Redwood trees, citing root pruning on the remaining trees could mitigate concerns and could be accomplished without dyer consequences. The property owner at 1309 Castillo (located behind the applicants property), -� has appealed the denial of the removal of the other two Redwood trees citing roots have lifted and cracked the driveway, and that they are experiencing difficulty opening their garage door. 2 NEW BUSINESS - Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees in the Back Yard (a 2504 Easton Drive — (Contd.) Commissioner Benson asked Arborist Porter how he determined which roots were causing the damage. Arborist Porter stated he could make that determination by following the root flair, which is straight across from the #2 Redwood tree, and is closest to the back fence line. Commissioner Lahey asked if the #2 Redwood tree were removed along with the stump, would the roots of the other trees be disturbed. Arborist Porter responded that stump removal would generally only include the general area around the stump and should not affect the other trees. Commissioner Ellis asked if the property owner wanted to install a lawn, would it grow. Arborist Porter responded yes, but lawn may last only 3-4 years. The Commission further reviewed with Arborist Porter the damage caused by tree roots, root growth, proper root pruning techniques, installation of root barriers to mitigate future damage, and stability of trees following root pruning. Chairperson Carney then opened the hearing for public comment. Susan Raffo (appellant), 1309 Castillo, submitted pictures of damage to fencing and surrounding concrete surfacing caused by roots from the neighboring redwood trees. She commented that, 6-8 years ago, because they could not open their garage door, her husband dug up the asphalt and cut out large roots so they could open their garage door. The roots have grown back again (creating the same problem), the driveway on the other side is now undulating, thin roots are in their yard, and the gate is now off line. Ms. Raffo stated that they wish to replace the driveway with the goal of replacing the garage and landscaping the garden but hesitates to do so because they do not want the roots to reinvade again. She stated that she is also concerned that the roots might someday invade her pool. Ms. Raffo concluded that her neighbors at 2504 Easton want to improve their back yard and have a play area for their children, that, the appeal is to have only one other tree removed, and hopes the Commission would reconsider and approve the removal of the #1 Redwood tree too. Commissioner Ellis asked Ms. Raffo the age of her existing driveway. Ms. Raffo stated the driveway is about 28 years old and replacement cost would run around $20,000 if the trees were to remain and root barriers were to be placed. John Ailanjian, 2504 Easton Drive, stated that when they bought the house they loved the Redwood trees, but thinks these trees are not appropriate for this size lot and were planted by the previous owner and left to grow. He stated that after they purchased the home, the basement flooded, due to roots; repair costs were $30,000. They have considered decking or installing Astroturf in the back yard but an Independent Arborist recommended removal because the trees were going to grow to a massive size and root pruning could make the trees unstable. He concluded his comments stating that they would be willing to replace the trees with other more suitable trees if removal were approved. Beth Ailanjian, 2504 Easton Drive, stated they loved the back yard when they bought their home 6 months ago, but no one wants to prune the roots; three people have stated that they would not guarantee the tree's stability if the roots are pruned. She now fears someone may get hurt if they were to prune the roots and cause the tree(s) to become unstable. She commented that she takes her children to the park all the time because they cannot provide a play area in the existing space; that the space is so tiny and unusable. She concluded that had they known, they would not have bought the house. Commissioner Grandcolas asked Arborist Porter if cutting the top of the Redwood tree would cause it to grow vertically. Arborist Porter stated, no, but cutting the top of the tree would create a worse situation. Arborist Porter added that putting a lawn in the back yard would be possible without pruning the roots by filling in with topsoil and seed over the roots of tree #3, and then in the area where tree #2 has been approved for removal, putting down a new layer of topsoil and planting a lawn. Commissioner McQuaide commented that her neighbors have several large Redwood trees in their yard and that they left an area open around the trunks, planted lawn, and the trees roots have not affected lawn. Raul Nicho, 2500 Easton Drive, stated that the Redwood trees roots at 2504 Easton Drive have caused problems on his property with the sewer line, can only assume it is the size of the trees, and that the Redwood tree 41 is mostly likely the tree damaging the sewer line. They have managed to live with the problems the tree has caused over the years, but he understands his neighbor's plight because their basement is now completely refinished. He concluded that he is in favor of the Commission approving removal, and was glad to hear that his neighbor would agree to plant trees that are more appropriate. NEW BUSINESS - Appeal of the Denial for the Removal of Only One of Three Redwood Trees in the Back Yard (a, 2504 Easton Drive - (Contd.) Commissioner Ellis noted that the hot tub is in the path of Redwood tree 41 and asked the Ailanjian's if they had experienced problems in that area. Mr. Ailanjian stated that the hot tub is elevated and there is concrete underneath, but "1 had not experienced any problems. Commissioner Grandcolas stated and clarified with Arborist Porter that the old clay sewer lines in the City of Burlingame shift and break or crack, and then the roots invade the line, not the other way around, that the roots break or crack sewer lines. Arborist Porter stated that tree roots don't search out sewer lines but will go to the source of water. Commissioner Grandcolas then asked if replacing the old clay sewer line would correct the problem. Arborist Porter stated yes, that would correct the problem. Chairperson Carney closed the hearing to public comment. Commissioner Benson stated if the approved removal of the #2 Redwood is removed then the #1 Redwood tree should be removed as well because they are too close to each other and there would still be a gorgeous big Redwood tree by leaving the 43 Redwood tree in this tiny back yard. Commissioner Benson then moved to approve the removal of the Redwood tree #1 hecause it is too close to the #2 Redwood tree already permitted for removal, the roots of the two trees are intertwined, root pruning would not mitigate the concerns, and the shade from Redwood tree #3 would provide shade and canopy for the yard; seconded, Carney. Commissioner McQuaide commented that if both Redwood tree #1 and Redwood tree #2 are removed, the 43 tree would stand alone and it is her understanding that Redwood trees need to have another Redwood tree; one Redwood tree in the yard might create instability on the remaining tree. Commissioner Benson responded that one Redwood tree could stand alone adding that these trees roots are going to continue growing and the trunks will continue growing. Commissioner Lahey commented that she is hesitant approving removal of a Redwood tree. Since the Redwood tree #2 has been already permitted for removal, the remaining Redwood tree #1 and Redwood tree #3 can be pruned and raised up; adding that we all have trees in our yards that were planted by squirrels. She noted that Redwood trees are gone in the City because trees were removed when the lots were subdivided in the City. Commissioner Carney asked Arborist Porter how long before roots would go into the driveway? Arborist Porter responded that it would probably take 10 years, that the driveway is 8-10 feet beyond the drip line. Commissioner Ellis stated and clarified with Arborist Porter that tree roots don't grow into foundations and that there would not be a problem with soil on the top of the existing roots. Arborist Porter stated that concrete foundations are deep and roots will not go through the concrete, and that putting topsoil and grass a couple of feet away from the trunk would be possible and doable in this case; noting that there are varieties of grass that would be more appropriate for the particular growing conditions. Following the discussion, Chairperson Carney repeated the motion and called for the vote. Motion failed. I (favore"enson), S (opposed), I (ahsent/Wright). Commissioner Benson then moved to uphold Arhorist Porter's recommendation to remove only Redwood tree #2; seconded, Grandcolas. Motion carried 6 - 0 - I (ahsent/Wright). Chairperson Carney thanked the appellants and advised of appeal procedures. OLD BUSINESS Business Landscape Award Update Commissioner Lahey reported that she had contacted the owner of Solo Bambini and Commissioner Wright had also notified artist Dale Perkins of the results as well. The owner of Solo Bambini was thrilled to hear that they would be receiving the award, and invited the Commission to come by and see the back yard of the business too. Commissioner Lahey submitted for Commission review, the proposed letter that would be sent to the winning business noting that the approved letter would be sent on Commission letterhead. She stated the plaque design would need to be decided and had asked Administrative Secretary Harvey to bring the plaque that was used for the Commission's past 'Landscape Award' -� program. Commissioner Lahey concluded that the plaque design, publicity for the Chamber Newsletter, and a date for the presentation before Council would need to go back to the committee; noting that since some summer Council meetings are cancelled, September might be the best month to present the award. 4 OLD BUSINESS - Business Landscape Award Update (Contd.) Commissioner Lahey then added that she would need to remove herself at this time from the committee because of time required of her with a new job and her children. Commissioner Benson stated she thought September would be too late and expressed concern that momentum would be lost. Following a brief discussion, it was a consensus of the Commission that Director Schwartz ascertains a date for a Council meeting in September when the award could be presented. Commissioner McQuaide agreed to serve on the committee. The committee would meet soon and decide on the plaque design and the publicity for the award. Street Tree Policy Recommendation/Official Street Tree List Revisions Interim Superintendent Foell reviewed the status of the Commissions Street Tree Policy Recommendation to Council and stated, though he had not attended the meeting, it was his understanding that, generally the Council approved the recommendation and agreed with the focus on 'tall canopy' trees. He noted that it is important for the revisions on the tree lists to be approved tonight because the fall planting, the Grant planting, and the postponed April planting is still on hold until the lists are approved. He stated that Supervisor Disco had been revising the lists, removing some species, adding some species, and keeping some trees with the best, largest canopies as possible. Commissioner Grandcolas commented that he attended the Council meeting when the recommendation was presented to Council. The Council did not seem intent on creating more "themed" streets, but thought it best not to dictate to homeowners the specie of tree to be planted in front of their homes, but mostly discussed removing bad choices of trees, leaving and adding choices of "grand" trees, and providing fewer choices of trees on the list. Interim Superintendent Foell stated that the existing "themed" streets need to be identified and that Supervisor Disco would be creating a list of "themed" streets for the Commission to review at the August meeting. Supervisor Disco stated he would like to see the tree lists reviewed on a yearly basis, adding and updating trees on the list. He then reviewed with the Commission the suggested revisions to the 4 street tree lists. The Commission made some suggested changes that Supervisor Disco would take into consideration after conducting further research. Chairperson Carney then opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater, stated that she had attended the May 19`s Council meeting and expressed concern that there seemed to be a disconnect between what is being presented at the Commission meeting and what happened at the Council meeting and understood by the Council's comments that they had wanted the street tree list peared down to include "grand" trees, maybe to 3 or 4 species on certain blocks. She noted that the revised street tree lists still had a lot of choice, and asked "where are the "grand" trees?" She commented that she did appreciate that the Red Bud had been removed from the list. Ms. Pfaff then suggested the following: * Under the PRIM list, 2 types of Magnolia's are not needed; remove the small 'Little Gem' Magnolia from the Est. * Narrow down the lists, choosing trees with big canopies; by default, a greater canopy is created * London Plane (Sycamore) trees could be included on the PRIM list * Pear trees only live 25 years and should be removed from the list because they are not long lived * Consider using a symbol by the trees on each list that are "canopy" trees or `Burlingame preferred" trees Elizabeth Watson commented on the possible "disconnect" between the Council and the Commission, and thought the Council heard that the lists could be cut down to 3 choices on the "themed" streets. She then suggested the following for the street tree lists: * Stay with the 4 lists with 10-12 choices on each list; the broader the choice for property owners, the better * Providing as many "grand" trees on each list as feasible * Providing smaller trees for areas where there are special needs; be flexible * Label "grander" trees on list; would love to know which are the "grander" trees Ms. Watson concluded that many who were to have trees planted in April are still waiting for a decision and do not know if or when the trees will be planted or if they will need to choose from other lists. Interim Superintendent Foell responded that staff has met and thought those on the April list would be able to stay with original choices because most were not on "themed" streets. Ms. Watson stated that those homeowners may wish to choose from the revised list. After a brief discussion, it was decided that once the revised list was approved, those on the April planting list would be given the opportunity to chose from those lists as well. OLD BUSINESS - Street Tree Policv Recommendation/Official Street Tree List Revisions — (Contd.) Chairperson Carney closedpublic comment. Commissioner McQuaide moved to approve the revised street tree list with the additions discussed, while researching other suggested species for inclusion; seconded, Benson. Motion carried 6 — 0 — I (ahsent/Wright). CalTrans Plan for El Camino Update Interim Superintendent Foell reported that CalTrans made a presentation to Council. Council has now asked CalTrans to provide a survey and a map for the October Council meeting indicating which Eucalyptus trees would be removed, and how many, and where replacement Elm trees would be planted. Commissioner Grandcolas reported that he was at the same Council meeting and stated that the news is not pretty; not hopeful. He continued that CalTrans' new guidelines call for removal of trees to provide a site distance of 100', each way, at each intersection, and that, replacement plantings will be sparse. He noted that he spoke to the issue and reminded the Council that Elm trees will not grow as tall as the Eucalyptus trees, and that overhead power lines will be very visible when the trees come down, and asked the Council to spend the money to underground power lines. Supervisor Disco stated that he had walked the El Camino several times with the project manager and had shared his concern regarding the 100' site distance each way at intersections. After the project manager discussed Supervisor Disco's concerns with his supervisor, it was articulated that this was just a "guideline" and could be adjusted. Supervisor Disco recommended to the project manager that 1) site distances at the intersections to be 30' each way, instead of 100% 2) the minimum spacing between replacement trees to be brought in (or lessened); 3) provide smaller trees instead of no trees for site clearances between driveways; and, 4) where wires are over planter strips, plant Accolade Elms trees, slightly back/closer to the sidewalk edge, rather than no tree planting in those areas. Supervisor Disco further reported that the majority of tree removals on El Camino at this time would be the removal of the small Eucalyptus microtheca trees. Julv Yd Beautification Commission Meeting After a brief discussion, it was a consensus of the Commission that the July 3rd Beautification Commission be cancelled due to the July 4a' Holiday. REPORTS — Interim Superintendent's Report Interim Superintendent Foell reported that staff is making progress on the fall tree planting. Interim Superintendent Greg Foell introduced himself and stated he had served in Parks and Recreation for 23 years; loves it and is very passionate about this field. He added that it is lovely to see a City that is so passionate about trees and that he comes from an area that has a commitment to trees. He noted that on the "Parks" end, he had served as Assistant Administrator with a Park District as well as an Administrator of a Park District doing Park Development and overseeing the planting of over 1,000 trees. Supervisor Disco Supervisor Disco reported that the tree crew removed 2 Silver Maples along the sidewalk on California Drive at the request of the Public Works Department due to ADA requirements because a blind individual had hit his head while walking on the sidewalk adjacent to the trees; both trees also had decay in the trunk. The trees would be replaced with Red Maples. Chairperson Carney Chairperson Carney reported that a Cork Oak tree had been planted in Washington Park, near the horseshoe pits, in honor of retired Parks Superintendent, Richmond. Commissioner Grandcolas Commissioner Grandcolas reported a swing had been placed in a City tree on Balboa. "1 REPORTS — (Contd.) Commissioner Benson Commissioner Benson reported that she trimmed the entire trail in Mills Canyon, weeded two blocks on Broadway, and deadheaded the rose bushes in the Park Road Rose Garden. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm. Respectfully submitted, n Kar ene Harvey Recording Secretary L 7