Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2005.06.02� B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION JUNE 2, 2005 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL Conference Room A - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD B URLINGAME, CA I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES OF APRIL 7, 2005 COMMISSION MEETING III. 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 4-. Appeal efthe Denial to Remove a City owned biquidambaF Tree 4, 2 T re n. enue (Postponed) 2. Tree View Ordinance — Committee Recommendation 3. Street Tree Removal Policy 4. Easton Drive Eucalyptus Trees a. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appointment of Nominating Committee for Election of Officers in August VII. REPORTS 1. Parks & Recreation Director 2. Parks Superintendent 3. Chairperson 4. Commissioners CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 0 '�P RAT[D - MEMORANDUM DATE: May 19, 2005 TO: BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSIONERS FROM: TIM RICHMOND, PARKS SUPERINTENDENT RE: JUNE 2 AGENDA The May meeting of the Commission was cancelled for lack of a quorum. Several significant items were on the agenda, and they will again be on the June agenda. Below is a brief recap. 1. View Ordinance recommendation from the Committee. The Committee prepared a written recommendation for the consideration of the full Commission. Committee Chair Mark Grandcolas is prepared to describe and discuss the recommendation. A vote by the full Commission is important for the Parks Division, which needs guidance in responding to a specific view related pruning request from Mr. Stallings of Alturas Drive. The Commission has heard from Mr. Stallings on several occasions as the View Ordinance discussion has proceeded. 2. 812 Laurel Avenue. The property owners at this address requested removal of the City street tree. The owners believe that the root uplift by the tree contributes to flooding of their property during rain events. The item was postponed pending additional information from Public Works. After the April meeting the Parks Supervisor and Victor Voong from Engineering were able to observe the site during a rain storm. Also the City's sidewalk contractor is going to saw cut concrete and expose the root. Once exposed the Parks Supervisor will be able more accurately assess possible actions to the root and their effect on the health of the tree. To date the exposure has not occurred. 3. Street Tree Removal Policy. Please review the changes that Director Schwartz recommended and be prepared to vote on them. 4. Easton Drive Reforestation. Director Schwartz met with the Committee formed by the Traffic and Safety Commission to recommend on safety issues on the street. He will meet with that Committee again after the respective Commissions have worked on Easton issues from their particular perspectives. Director Schwartz would like the Beautification Commission to focus its efforts on the selection of appropriate species (one or several) for the area. At the April meeting the Commission heard several suggestions from Kevin Kielty of Mayne Tree. 5. Chairperson Hesselgren will also be appointing a Nominating Committee. New officers are generally appointed beginning with the September meeting. Thank you for your attention to these matters. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION - TREE VIEW ORDINANCE In considering whether or not to recommend to the commission the adoption of a tree view ordinance for the City of Burlingame, the committee assigned to study the issue has had the benefit of hearing from members of the public who have expressed interest in considering the adoption of a tree view ordinance. We are sympathetic to their plight. We have also had access to many facts related to tree view ordinances, freely available on the Internet, including much research on the economic value of a tree canopy to residential and business property owners. This economic research was done by professors from leading universities around the U.S. In coming to a decision, we believed it would be insufficient if we did not consider all of the relevant facts. We found all of the following facts relevant and compelling: 1. A panoramic and sweeping view of the bay can significantly add `-- to a home owner's property value, and it is therefore worthwhile to consider how to protect an existing panoramic and sweeping view of the bay. `.. 2. Tall tree canopies can also add significantly to a home owners property value, and in the following ways: - Studies have shown that a home buyer is willing to pay 5% more for a property with trees than without, and as much as 15% more for a property with mature trees. - Studies have also shown that tall shade trees can reduce utility costs for cooling by as much as 15% to 35%, and can reduce heating costs with windbreak by as much as 10% to 50%. A recent UCLA study on the impact of global warming on California notes that the San Francisco bay area will begin a transition to a climate similar to Sacramento within 12 years from now. Thus the cooling benefit of tall canopy of trees becomes even more significant. 1 Trees protect hillsides from landslides and also mitigate the impact of storm water runoff. This is especially beneficial to Burlingame as we have a problem draining our storm water runoff due to over- stressed main sewer pipes that are often undersized, made of clay, and outdated. - Studies have also shown that residential properties within proximate range of wooded parks command a 10% to 20% property value premium compared to those not within proximate range of a wooded park. 3. Studies have also shown that Rental buildings with trees have a 7% higher rental rate than those without trees. 4. Studies of shopping areas have found that people have a clearer preference for tall tree canopy in shopping areas, because it is more inviting and enhances strolling and lingering. These same studies show that the average shopper spends 30 minutes in a shopping area with no trees, 60 minutes in an area with small trees, and 80 minutes in an area with tall canopy trees. The study �.. shows that this translates to merchants able to charge on average 5% to 20% higher product pricing, depending on category of goods provided. 5. The committee noted that all cities should be aware of these facts,and no city should overlook these facts. Burlingame has never had a tree view ordinance, much less a policy, outside of that currently required by our planning commission. Thus introducing a new tree view ordinance should not be considered lightly. 6. The committee also found and takes special note of the fact that some cities (such as El Cerrito and Berkeley) that have tree view ordinances also have had many lawsuits and much acrimony between neighbors as a result. A tree ordinance is an attempt to address competing and often contentious claims for rights and to set a standard to apply to the entire city. 7. Especially noted by the committee is that none of the cities that currently have a tree view ordinance also have the "Tree City USA" distinction that Burlingame has. 2 LIM 8. And finally, the committee believes that putting forth an ordinance is a drastic step, especially in light of the fact that taking the first step of providing a city tree view policy has never been considered or attempted. In consideration of all of the above 8 points, we firmly recommend against a tree view ordinance for the city of Burlingame. Instead, we recommend the creation of a tree view policy as guidance and mechanism to resolve tree view disputes on a case -by -case individual basis for those members of the public who want to protect their panoramic and sweeping views of the bay. We believe it is possible that having a tree view policy could alleviate problems expressed by members of the public. We have already done much research on a tree view policy, and can recommend a draft of such policy if the commission decides to accept the recommendation of the committee. 4/25/05 3 M 4 CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME U RLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 • Telephone (650) 558-7300 • Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 c•""""T` Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org Mr. Kevin Kielty Mayne Tree Expert Company 535 Bragato Road San Carlos, CA 94070 Dear Kevin, Thank you very much for your informative session with the Beautification Commission at its April 7 meeting. By the conclusion of its time with you the Commission gained a comprehensive understanding of the condition of the City trees on Easton Drive from El Camino to Vancouver Avenue. You have a great ability to present technical information in a clear and understandable manner. Your personal climbing experiences with the trees also lent credibility to your presentation. I believe that the Commission received answers to all of its important questions and is now better able to make informed recommendations regarding the trees. Thank you again for making your valuable time available to the Commission. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent Cc: Randy Schwartz, Director of Parks & Recreation Beautification Commission Tree view policy recommendation • Previously reviewed a copy of tree view "policy" created and used by the city of Belmont — Burlingame's physical topology is more similar to Belmont than to cities outside the peninsula — Burlingame bay view is similar to Belmont bay view — Like Burlingame, Belmont does not have a tree view ordinance • Belmont tree view policy is a comprehensive "guideline" for mediation resolution I • Good points about Belmont's view policy: — Relevant to Burlingame because of similar topology and similar vista of the bay — Contains good, comprehensive list of considerations to follow once in mediation — Puts all mitigation costs onto the owner of the view, not the owner of the tree — Considers only views impacted by growth since move in — Recommendation is in the hands of professional mediator (even though non- binding) — Is at least a mechanism for resolving disputes, which is better than no mechanism • Bad points about Belmont's view policy: — A "view" is defined to be a view of anything at all, their definition is not restrictive in any way — Identified as applying only to private property owners, does not identify the city as a party to the guidelines — No single mediator identified; since any number of them could be used, no single one develops the required experience, knowledge, and expertise to make best judgement Summary of how the Belmont policy could apply to Burlingame • It is at least a defined mechanism; probably a good first step for a "Tree city" that has no ordinance • It may solve the problem at hand by adoption with following modifications: — Define "view" as a panoramic view of the bay only, and restrict it to the same area as the current planning dept view ordinance — Name the City as a party submitting to the guidelines — Identify a specific mediator • Benefits of adoption with above modifications: — Burlingame has a mediator on retainer, so educating them once provides consistency and best judge — Restrictive definition would maximize canopy protection and reduce conflicts — Won't negatively impact city finances — Appears to solve the current problem at hand — Future modifications of the policy, or even future conversion to an ordinance, could occur