Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2005.09.06JOINT MEETING BETWEEN THE B URLINGAME CITY COUNCIL & B URLINGAME BEA UTIFICA TION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 6: 00 P.M. CITYHALL Conference Room A - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD B URLINGAME, CA I. Roll Call/Introductions H. Public Comments (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.) III. Tree View Policy/Ordinance IV. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive V. Other Business VI. Adjournment CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES FOR RESOLUTION OF BAY VIEW DISPUTES (DRAFT) PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES A. The purpose of these guidelines are 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. a. These guidelines do not impair obligations imposed by an existing agreement, or a valid pre-existing enforceable covenant or agreement. b. 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. The objectives of these guidelines are: a. To restore access to existing views of the bay from properties within the Hillside areas subject to hillside construction permit (Burlingame ordinance 1448). b. To encourage the maintenance of positive relationships within a neighborhood when there is a conflict between the tree and bay view preservation. c. It is not the objective of these guidelines to facilitate or encourage access to any other views such as hills and landmarks, nor access to sunlight, or the transmission of radio, television or other electronic signals. d. To preserve and protect the aesthetic and practical benefits which trees provide for individuals and the entire community. e. To discourage ill-considered pruning or destruction of trees. C. DEFINITIONS 1. "Bay views" means a distant vista or panoramic view of the San Francisco bay. 2. "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 DBH. 3. "Trees" means any woody perennial plant characterized by having a single trunk of 6" DBH or more, or any street tree regardless of size. 4. "Originating party" means any property owner who wishes to either remove 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 ordinance 1448). 5. "Tree owner" means any individual 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. 6. "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). 7. "Tree mediator" means any trained or experienced mediator(s) either recommended by, or on retainer with, the City of Burlingame. 8. "Restorative action means any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute. 9. "Trimming" means the selective removal of entire branches from a tree as to improve visibility through the tree and or improve the trees structural condition. 10. "Tree removal" means the elimination of any tree from its present location. 11. "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. 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 hillside construction permit (Burlingame ordinance 1448); 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. The notice shall include all the --, pertinent information describing the bay view obstruction. The notification should, 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. Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary. 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. The mediation meeting may be informal, and no written record is necessary unless desired by one of the parties. 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. 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. 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: oil 1. Visual quality of the tree, including but not limited to species characteristics, 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 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 city code governing the removal or pruning of a tree. 10. The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or structures on the property of the originating party including, but not limited to, the danger of falling limbs or trees. 11. The existence of bay views that cannot be seen because of the growth of trees since the acquisition of originating party's property within the Hillside areas subject to hillside construction permit (Burlingame ordinance 1448). F. RESTORATIVE ACTIONS The mediator may recommend restorative action consistent with requirements in the municipal code or no action. Restorative actions may include written directions as to appropriate timing of trimming, thinning, topping, or removal. 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 Tree Ordinance. Possible restorative actions may include: -Trimming -Thinning -Delayed trimming or thinning -Topping (if appropriate) -Tree removal with replacement 1. Restorative actions should be limited to the trimming and or thinning of branches where possible and practical. Trimming or thinning may be on a delayed basis. 2. Where trimming and or thinning is not a feasible solution, the impact on the health of the tree shall be considered and replacement may be appropriate. Topping is not a generally accepted arboricultural practice. 3. In those cases where tree removal eliminates or significantly reduces the tree owners benefits, replacement plantings may be set forth in writing prior to removal. All trimming, thinning, topping, and tree removal required under this chapter should be performed by a person or a firm selected by the tree owner with the concurrence of the originating party, The use of a certified arborist for such work is encouraged, 4. The extent of the bay view available and documentable as present at any time during the tenure of the present owner is the limit of the restorative action contemplated under these guidelines. No restorative action is contemplated under these guidelines concerning any tree the base or which is more than three hundred feet from the originating party's property. 5. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit reasonable compensation to a tree owner for value lost during restorative actions. G. APPORTIONMENTS OF COST H. POLICY REVIEW 1. The originating parry shall pay all costs, if any, of mediation. 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 should pay one hundred percent to the costs of the initial restorative actions, as well as the cost of subsequent --� restorative action as the result of reoccurrence of the same obstruction. This policy will be evaluated as to its effectiveness by the City Council two years from the date of Council approval. W 4 EXISTING ORDINANCE FEATURE TO BE CONSIDERED (f) "Protected tree" means: (1) Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. (g) "Pruning" means the removal of more than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more than one third of the root system. Pruning done without a permit or which does not conform to the provisions of a permit shall be deemed a removal. (d) Review. In reviewing applications, the director shall give priority to those based on hazard or danger of disease. The director may refer any application to another department, committee, board or commission of the city for a report and recommendation, and may require the applicant to provide an arborist's report. In reviewing each application, the director shall determine: (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree(s) in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow economic enjoyment of the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree(s) on erosion; soil retention; and diversion or increased flow of surface waters; (4) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood on improved property and the effect the removal would have on the established standard of the area and property value. Neighborhood is defined as the area within a 300-foot radius of the property containing the tree(s) in question; (5) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to good arboricultural practices; (6) The effect tree removal would have on wind protection, noise and privacy; and (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1470 § 1; September 9, 1992, Ord. 1492 § 2; September 20, �.. 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 such as Dr. Kathy Wolf — Assistant Professor of Urban Forest Environment and. Behavior, University of Washington, and others 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 clear 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. 2 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. 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. Included here is a DRAFT of a proposed bay view policy intended to L-- assist those who have had existing views of the bay obstructed by tree growth. 3