HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2006.03.02AGENDA
B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
MARCH 2, 2006
5:30 P.M.
CITYHALL
Conference Room A - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA
I. ROLL CALL
H. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 2, 2006 COMMISSION MEETING
M. CORRESPONDENCE
�-- IV. FROM THE FLOOR (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the
agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on a
matter which is not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes.)
V. OLD BUSINESS
1. Eagle Scout Project — Andrew Mendoza
2. Arbor Day — Monday, March 6'h na, Washington Park — 850 Burlingame Ave.
3. Bay View Disputes Guidelines
4. P.G.&E. Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame — Committee Report
5. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive — (Item to be discussed following New
Business item).
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. City Council Goals
VII. REPORTS
1. Staff
2. Chairperson
3. Commissioners
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7300 fax: (650) 696-7216"
recreationaburlin ag me.org
bN
MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
Beautification Commissioners
From: Randy Schwartz
Date: March 3, 2006
Re: COMMILSSION INPUT ON GOAL STATEMENTS
The Beautification Commissioners, at their March 2nd meeting, discussed the nine items referred
to them by Council during the January Goal Setting Session. A summary of the Commission's
input on each item is shown below. Please let me know if you would like more details.
• Look into tree trimming maintenance in business areas. Many trees are blocking
signage on stores — The Commission understands the concern of the business owners, but
`— prioritizes the health of the trees above the signage problems The Commission suggests
sending the businesses a letter listing the benefits of trees in business areas, such as shade
protection of parking spaces and store fronts, economic value of trees. The Commission also
asked staff to look at the growth rate of the trees (Staff note: These trees have been included
in the grid pruning schedule and are set to be trimmed in the winter of the 2006-07 budget
year.)
• Broadway trees should be trimmed more often for uniform look — Although this comment
came in as a separate item, the question is similar as the one above.
• Don't remove eucalyptus trees on Easton because they act as speed bumps to slow
traffic — This point will be discussed along with the Easton Eucalyptus tree issues currently
before the Commission. Staff points out that trees are not intended as speed bumps, nor is
this function healthy for the trees
• Keep Caltrans from removing trees on El Camino — Trees along El Camino Real are
under the jurisdiction of Caltrans. The Commission recommends City staff continue working
with Caltrans to develop a maintenance plan for the trees that includes regular trimming,
testing, removal of unhealthy trees, and replacement of any removals on a 2:1 basis.
M
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
The Commission stated that several items on the list are too ambiguous for specific comment and --�
indicate the need for public education as the practices below are already in place. The
Commission suggested that this information be disseminated in the water bills or through realtors
when properties are sold.
• Enforce beautification ordinances —Protected tree removals need a City permit,
appeals are often before the Commission and fees are charged to violators
• City requires 1-2 trees in front of every residence but residents cannot modify,
spray, or cut the tree — This statement is a correct reflection of the current status. Street
trees are maintained by City crews in order to ensure proper arboricultural practices are
applied to all of the trees.
• Comprehensive tree planting program on residential streets — Each year the City
plants more trees than are removed This is one of the qualifying conditions of being
proclaimed a Tree City, USA — an honor the City has received for over 25 years.
• Evaluate streets without trees — Residents who do not have trees in front of their
property may contact the Parks Division office and request a tree be planted The City
will plant and maintain the tree at no charge to the property owner, but residents are
encouraged to water the trees.
• Maintain trees neat to sidewalks better — It is unsure if this remark was directed at the "1
maintenance of the trees or the trees' impact on the sidewalks which could have many
contributing factors.
__N
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept.
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
phone: (650) 558-7300 fax: (650) 696-7216y°""°
recreation(ae,burlin ag me_org
MEMORANDUM°
To: Beautification Commissioners
From: Randy Schwartz
Date: February 9, 2006
Re: CITY COUNCIL GOALS
At the City Council's Goal Setting Session on January 28th, the Council discussed over 200 items
that were submitted by either a Council member or by a member of the public. Ten of these
items were referred to the Beautification Commission for input.
These items are:
• Look into tree trimming maintenance in business areas. Many trees are blocking signage
on stores.
• Don't remove eucalyptus trees on Easton because they act as speed bumps to slow traffic
• Keep Caltrans from removing trees on El Camino
• Broadway tree should be trimmed more often for uniform look
• Maintain trees next to sidewalks better
• Enforce beautification ordinances
• City requires 1-2 trees in front of every residence but residents cannot modify, spray, or
cut the tree
• Comprehensive tree planting program on Residential streets
• Evaluate streets without trees
• Don't remove eucalyptus trees on Easton because they act as speed bumps to slow traffic
We will be discussing each of these items at the March 2nd Commission meeting and your
feedback or recommendations will be forwarded back to Council. In the meantime, staff will be
preparing information on each of these items. Please let me know if you have any questions or if
there is specific information you would like to have either before or during the meeting.
Thank you.
Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play
RESOLUTION NO. 8-2006
�-' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR RESOLUTION OF BAY VIEW DISPUTES
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, a panoramic and sweeping view of San Francisco Bay can add significantly
to a homeowner's property value; and
WHEREAS, tall tree canopies can also add significantly to a homeowner's property
value; and
WHEREAS, studies have also shown that tall shade trees can reduce utility costs for
cooling by as much as fifteen to thirty-five percent and can reduce heating costs with windbreak
by as much as ten to fifty percent; and
WHEREAS, trees protect hillsides from landslides and mitigate the impact of storm
water runoff, and
WHEREAS, studies have also shown that rental buildings with trees have a seven -
percent higher rental rate than those without trees; and
WHEREAS, some cities that have "tree view" ordinances have led to many lawsuits and
much acrimony between neighbors as a result; and
WHEREAS, it does not appear that any of the cities that currently have a "tree view"
ordinance also have the "Tree City USA" distinction that Burlingame has; and
WHEREAS, the Beautification Commission has undertaken a lengthy study, drafting,
and hearing process that has considered a variety of approaches and the many perspectives
-involved in the issue; and
WHEREAS, the Beautification Commission has recommended that the City Council
adopt the Guidelines attached as Exhibit A to provide a process for resolving disputes involving
views and trees in as constructive and amicable ways as possible; and
WHEREAS, these Guidelines are in the public interest,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes attached hereto as Exhibit A are
approved.
&fL 60v-
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th
day of Feb2 !ar?C006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BAYLOCK, coHEN, KEIGHRAN, NAGEL, o 'MAHONY
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
C:T1LES\RES0\treeview.p&r. wpd
2
ity Clerk
'\
.N
W EXHIBIT "A"
CITY OF BURLINGAME
GUIDELINES FOR RESOLUTION OF BAY VIEW DISPUTES
A. PURPOSE
The purpose of these guidelines is to set forth a procedure for the resolution of disputes
between parties (both private and city property owners) relating to the loss of Bay views
due to tree growth.
1. These guidelines do not impair obligations imposed by an existing agreement, or
a valid pre-existing enforceable covenant, easement or agreement.
2. Nothing in these guidelines is meant to replace the peaceful, sensible, and just
resolution of differences between neighbors acting in good faith. The provisions
contained in these guidelines are meant to encourage that such resolution occurs
prior to engaging in the recommended remedies provided by them.
B. OBJECTIVES
1. To restore access to existing views of the bay from properties within the Hillside
areas subject to a hillside construction permit (Burlingame Municipal Code
chapter 25.61).
2. To encourage the maintenance of positive relationships within a neighborhood
when there is a conflict between a tree or trees and Bay view preservation.
3. It is not the objective of these guidelines to facilitate or encourage access to any
other views such as of hills and landmarks, nor access to sunlight, nor the
`-- transmission of radio, television, satellite dishes, or other electronic signals.
4. To preserve and protect the aesthetic and practical benefits which trees provide
for individuals and the entire community.
5. To discourage ill-considered pruning or destruction of trees.
C. DEFINITIONS
1.
"Bay view" means a distant vista or panoramic view of the San Francisco Bay.
2.
"Crown Reduction" means a method of reducing the height or spread of a tree by
performing appropriate pruning cuts.
3.
"Crown Restoration" means a method of restoring the natural growth of a tree that
has been topped or damaged in any other way.
4.
"DBH" means the diameter of the tree at breast height measured at 4.5 feet above
the natural grade. In the case of multiple stemmed trees, the measurement will be
the sum of diameters of all stems measured at 4.5 feet above the natural grade.
5.
"Obstruction" means any substantial blockage or diminishment of a bay view
from a structure lawfully used as a dwelling which is attributable to the growth,
maintenance or locations of tree(s).
6.
"Originating party" means any property owner who wishes to either remove and
perhaps replace or have trimmed a tree(s) on the property of another which
creates an obstruction to the bay view of another within the Hillside areas subject
to hillside construction permit (Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61).
7.
"Restorative action" means any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute.
1
8. "Topping" means removal of the top portion of a tree's main leader(s) resulting in
an overall reduction in the tree's height and size.
9. "Tree" means any woody perennial plant characterized by having a single trunk of
15.28"DBH (48" circumference) or more, or any street tree regardless of size.
10. "Tree mediator" means any trained or experienced mediator(s) either
recommended by, or on retainer with, the City of Burlingame.
11. "Tree owner" means any individual, company, corporation, or other property
owner owning real property in Burlingame upon whose land is located a tree or
trees alleged by an originating party to cause an obstruction to a Bay view.
12. "Tree removal" means the elimination of any tree from its present location.
13. "Trimming" means the selective removal of entire branches from a tree as to
improve visibility through the tree and or improve the tree's structural condition.
D. PROCEDURES
The procedures described in this section shall be followed in the resolution of Bay view
disputes caused by the obstruction of tree growth within the Hillside areas subject to
Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61.
1. Initial Reconciliation: An originating party who believes in good faith that growth,
maintenance or location of trees on the property of another (hereafter referred to
as the tree owner) diminishes the beneficial use or economic value of his or her
property because such tree(s) interferes with Bay views that existed prior to such
growth, maintenance, or location of the tree(s) on the property during the time the
originating party has occupied the property shall notify the tree owner in writing
of such concerns.
a. The notice shall include all the pertinent information describing the bay
view obstruction.
b. The notification shall, if possible, be accomplished by personal
discussions to enable the originating party and tree owner to attempt to
reach a mutually agreeable solution.
2. Mediation: If such initial reconciliation attempt fails, the originating party shall
propose mediation as a means to settle the dispute on a relatively informal basis.
a. Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary.
b. If mediation is elected, the parties agree to use any trained or experienced
mediator(s) either recommended by, or on retainer with, the City of
Burlingame.
C. The mediation meeting may be informal, and no written record is
necessary unless desired by one of the parties.
d. The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or
expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of the
originating party and tree owner.
e. The tree mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for the
restorative action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their
dispute.
roo
2
E. GUIDELINES FOR RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES
Factors to consider
In attempting to resolve Bay view tree disputes the parties and /or mediator may consider
�— the following factors in determining what restorative actions, if any, are appropriate:
l . Visual quality of the tree, including but not limited to species, characteristic size,
growth, form, and vigor.
2. Location with respect to overall appearance, design, and/or use of the tree owner's
property.
3. Soil stability provided by the tree(s)
4. Visual, auditory, and wind screening provided by the tree(s) to the owner and to
neighbors. Existing privacy provided by the tree to the tree owner's home shall be
given particular weight.
5. Energy conservation and/or climate control provided by the tree(s).
6. The economic value of the tree(s) as measured by the criteria developed by the
International Society of Arboriculture and the economic value of the property as a
result of the existence or maintenance of the tree(s).
7. Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s).
8. Other factors including: the degree to which the species is native to the area,
indigenous nature of tree species, and specimen tree quality.
9. The tree(s) relation to the Municipal Codes governing the removal or pruning of a
tree.
10. The existence of Bay views that cannot be seen from habitable structures because
of the growth of trees since the acquisition of originating party's property within
the Hillside areas subject to Burlingame Municipal Code chapter 25.61.
`-- 11. Expert opinion from mutually agreed upon tree expert(s) or an expert appointed
by the mediator with the consent of the parties.
F. RESTORATIVE ACTIONS
The mediator may recommend restorative action, consistent with requirements in the
municipal code, or no action. Restorative actions may include trimming, thinning,
topping, crown reduction, crown restoration, removal, or removal with replacement.
Written directions as to appropriate timing of restorative action may be included.
Such restorative actions are to apply only to current parties to the dispute. It will be the
responsibility of the originating party to provide the mediator with a copy of the City's
Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection and/or Street Tree Ordinance.
G. APPORTIONMENTS OF COST
1. The originating party shall pay all costs, if any, of mediation, unless otherwise
agreed upon by all parties.
2. At any time during the procedure specified in this policy the parties may agree
between themselves as to the allocations of the costs of restorative action. If such
an agreement is not reached, the originating party shall pay one hundred percent
to the costs of the initial restorative actions, as well as the cost of subsequent
restorative actions as the result of reoccurrence of the same obstruction.
H. POLICY REVIEW
This policy will be evaluated as to its effectiveness by the City Council two years .roar
the date of Council approval. '1
FOO
rd
Tree View Policy
Procedures for Discussions w/ City Trees
(February 21, 2006)
Interests
• View owner
• Property owner where tree resides
• Neighbors of tree property
• City budget
• City workload
• Commission / Council
Process
• View owner submits written request to Director
• Parks Supervisor gives Director an Arborist's report on tree with structural and historical
information
• Director to makes recommendation after considering:
o Interests of view owner
o Interests of property owner
o Interests of tree
o City budget
o Parks Division's workload
• Recommendation shall include:
o Action (no action, trimming, removal, or removal with replacement)
o Responsibility of City
o Responsibility of view owner
o Responsibility of property owner (potential selection of replacement)
o Party responsible for having work performed
o Party responsible for paying for agreed upon work
• Recommendation to be given to both view owner and property owner
• If view owner and property owner both agree with recommendation, Department will contact
neighbors
o If either view owner or property owner do not agree with recommendation, mediation
may be attempted
• If neighbors agree with recommendation, appropriate action to be taken
o If neighbors protest recommendation, Beautification Commission conducts a hearing
Residents —Easton Drive, El Camino to Vancouver — FIRST DRAFT
Dear Residents,
In 2005 the Burlingame City Council requested that the Burlingame Beautification
Commission draft recommendations for a Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive. The
Council desired a rational plan for tree removal and replacement over time as the existing
trees individually reached and exceeded maturity.
The Commission had many general discussions concerning a reforestation plan. Included
was a discussion with Consulting Arborist Kevin Kielty of Mayne Tree Service at a
regular meeting of the Commission. Kielty provided the City with a written evaluation of
all the trees in the subject area. Kielty rated the health of each tree in his report.
A Committee was then formed from the Commission to research and make
recommendation as to possible replacement trees for the existing Eucalyptus and Cypress
trees. Input on species selection and a replacement strategy was also sought from U.C.
Extension Advisor Larry Costello.
Before developing a specific recommendation the Commission would like to hear from
the residents and property owners on Easton Drive. Public input may cover many
considerations. They might include:
1. Replacement species —single species or mix, evergreen or deciduous or mix
2. Scale of replacement trees —canopy height and spread
3. Planting plan —single trees as trees are removed, clusters of trees in open
stretches, other.
4. General statements about the desired overall character and look of the street —
elements of a Master Plan
5. Property owner perspectives
A public meeting to gather input and answer questions will be held on at
The Beautification Commission will facilitate the meeting and give any current available
information. Your comments are welcome in advance of the meeting. E-mails
(kharvey@burlingame.org) and letters (850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010)
will be forwarded to the Commission and acknowledged at the meeting.
Thank you for your interest and participation.
Leslie McQuaide
Beautification Chairperson
Residents —Easton Drive, El Camino to Vancouver
DRAFT Tree letter
Honorable Council,
The Beautification Commission would like to bring to your attention an urgent matter
regarding current PG&E tree trimming practices in the city of Burlingame.
Since the time PG&E encountered financial difficulties, we have noticed that they have
resorted to a new method of trimming our street trees under overhead power lines; the
new method is "flat topping."
The "flat topping" method differs from the old "tunneling" (trimming branches in way
that allows the overhead power lines to go through the tree) method previously employed
by PG&E.
The result of this new approach is unsightly and unhealthy trees, and it negatively
impacts city finances:
• A "flat topping" practice accelerates the process of heart rot in trees, decreasing
their life span and leading to more frequent replacement
• A "flat topping" practice also negatively impacts a valuable city asset (city trees
in general, but especially taller, healthy trees, are valued higher in GABA asset
calculations)
• Flat topped trees accentuate unsightly overhead power lines
• Other cities on the peninsula, such as Palo Alto and Woodside, are not subject to
this "flat topping" tree trimming practice, and instead benefit from the older
"tunneling" pruning approach
Potential solutions may or may not include such recommended remedies as under -
grounding power lines, or getting PG&E to follow in Burlingame the same tunneling
method of pruning used in other cities on the peninsula.
We respectfully ask if the City Council would like to assign the Beautification
commission the task of investigating and recommending a solution to this situation with
PG&E.
Respectfully submitted,