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