Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - CC - 1979.01.10281 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 10, 1979 CALL TO ORDER A special meeting of the Burlingame City Council was convened on January 10, 1979, at 8:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers by Mayor William J. Crosby. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG: Led by City Manager, Charles F. Schwalm. ROLL CALL COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: AMSTRUP,BARTON,CROSBY,MANGINI,MARTIN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: None HEARING ON*VROPOSAL FOR VIEW/TREE ORDINANCE Mayor Crosby announced that the purpose of the meeting was to afford public input regarding advisability of legislation to preserve views. Prior to the public hearing he requested Park Director John Hoffman to report on his findings regarding ordinances on the subject in Sausalito, Belvedere, Tiburon and E1 Cerrito. Mr. Hoffman stated that he spoke with staff in all four of the cities. His questions related to cost to the cities for staff time and general costs of implementing the ordinances. Belvedere reported the ordinance has not been invoked since August. Most people seemed to work matters out between themselves. A member of the Zoning Department in Tiburon stated the ordinance has been in effect since 1970. She said she felt implementation is time consuming and an unwarranted cost to the city, and neither the complainant nor tree owner are often satisfied. A public meeting was held Saturday, January 6th, for discussion concerning the ordinance and only 37 people attended so the city is considering revocation of the ordinance. The Engineering and Public Works Department in Sausalito administer its ordinance. There are 4 or 5 complaints a month involving sec- retarial work ($5 to $10) and staff time, primarily in locating trees and property lines on hillsides. Actual enforcement of the ordinance is done by a volunteer woman whose dedicated service has resulted in matters being settled without court appearances. Mr. Hoffman talked to the Director of Parks and Recreation in E1 Cerrito who stated that, though the ordinance has been in effect 2 years, there have been no complaints filed with the city until recently. He believes the fee deters filing of complaints and, because of his mailing out brochures, people have settled matters between themselves. The ordinance has not been tested in court and city staff doubts it would hold up. If it becomes necessary to use ordinance procedure because of a complaint, he feels great deal of staff, commission and council time will be required. Mayor Crosby asked the City Clerk for a report of the results of questionnaires mailed at Council request. Mrs. Hill stated that as directed by Council, 43 questionnaires were mailed to people who had written to Council, and 45 were distributed to people who came to the office. There were 35 responses which indicated 21 had talked with neighbors, 7 met with cooperation, 12 did not, and 2 received indications of conditional cooperation. Nine did not approach neighbors. Some people agreed to tree topping under specifiedconditions; others objected to large trees which caused loss of sunshine; and several who had no view problem supported legislation to resolve future controversy. In response to Mayor Crosby's request for his opinion, the City Attorney stated that the type of ordinance dealing with tree and 282 view obstruction has not yet been tested in court. Other municipal attorneys with whom he discussed the matter are not enthusiastic. Mayor Crosby declared the meeting open to public input, with the understanding that those in favor would speak first and each in- dividual would be Limited to three minutes. MR. PETER SALVARESSA of 1830 Sebastian Drive stated that the purpose of the Home Owners for View Preservation is to work for an ordinance to provide for arbitration of tree and view dis- putes. He added that trees planted on the hillside have dim- inished the value of property which was purchased because of aesthetic views and in many cases resulted in loss of sunlight. Premium prices were paid for homes specially designed to take advantage of views, and the greater prices are reflected in tax bills. Existing laws need to be amended to prevent unrestricted planting and provide a means for communication. He recommended the E1 Cerrito o-rdivaace be used as a guide with appropriate changes. MR. RODERICK O'MEARA of 1109 Drake requested that an ordinance not be restricted to obstruction of views. He objected to clogged gutters, overhanging branches and the inherent danger of tree branches overhanging power lines. He also called attention to the damage roots cause to sewer lines. MRS. FLOYD WILSON of 1812 Montecito Way questioned the right to erect a fence which, though conforming to the 6 -foot limitation, interfered with her view. MR. ROBERT ULRICH of 1712 Toledo Avenue expressed the opinion that one who pays more for a view should have a right to com- plain when it is obstructed, for the higher tax assessment re- mains. He stated that the Mills Estate restrictions were ap- proved by the City of Burlingame, so Legislation should be enacted to insure compliance. MRS. FRANCES ZEDEKAR of 1568 Alturas presented pictures to Council to illustrate loss of view because of many towering pines. In response to Mayor Crosby's query whether she had talked to her neighbor she said that she had but only two branches were removed with complaint, whereas more work was done to provide sunlight for the property owner's pool. MRS. MARY MARTIN of 2653 Martinez described ownership of two pieces of property in the Mills Estate area. On one the view was completely lost by a pine tree fence the neighbor said he planted because the former owner irritated him, but which is now three times as high as the house. The property on Castenada depreciated $15,000, she said, because the owners below refused to trim their tree. She felt that without an ordinance neighbor would be pitted against neighbor. Mayor Crosby pointed out the proposed ordinance is intended to preserve, not create views. MR. DAVID F. KINERT of 2839 Arguello stated that he felt the facts are not necessarily as presented by the proponents. The approx- imately 10% grade from house to house on the hill results in an unobstructed view with trees or shrubs 12 feet in height. He feels the controversy is a springboard for hard feelings between neighbors and that the sovereign rights of property owners to air space and property enjoyment must be preserved. MR. HAROLD ROBBINS of 1700 Toledo commented that he presently has no view problem but may have one in several years. He favored everyone meeting together to work out a solution fair to everyone in the Mills Estate. MR. PAUL MOURTON of 2678 Mariposa said that he believed the entire Mills Estate was covered with trees, and the subsequent removal of trees by developers caused instability of the land, which was sal- vaged by replanting of vegetation. He said the only assurance of a view is statements of realtors; that action by the City would 283 result in taxpayer expense for the exclusive benefit of a few areas; and that he would accept only a qualified professional's opinion concerning topping of trees. MR. JOHN MORGAN of 2720 Martinez related his experience with a cooperative and then non-cooperative landowner, resulting in the loss of his view. He also objected to the necessity of re- moving debris of trees from his roof. MR. DENNIS HUDSON of 1544 Los Montes reported that most people in that area have been cooperative in topping trees that block views. The exception are property owners front of him who have two large trees. He compared a tree ordinance to a traffic speed regulation and pointed out that four existing ordinances have not caused excessive lawsuits but have encouraged cooper- ation. MR. EDWARD SINSKI of 1109 Balboa stated that his problem with neighbors' overgrown trees was loss of sunlight so that he can no longer plant a vegetable garden, and the amount of trash he must clean from neiihbors' tree droppings. In response to Councilwoman Barton s question the City Attorney confirmed that overhanging branches and roots may be cut back provided no damage to the tree results, and only limbs and roots on your own property are cut back. MRS. HELLEN TROUT of 1552 Alturas stated that the trees of which Mrs. Zedakar spoke obscured her panoramic view. She com- mented that the neighbor who would not top the trees had in fact worked on trees on the property to provide clearance for his pool. She feels her property has devaluated up to $20,000 because of the trees. MR. GERALD FIORE of 1564 Alturas said as a professional realtor he believes views add value. He added that homes are designed, modified and built to take advantage of vistas. Neither he nor the two previous owners of his property have received cooperation from his neighbor. He pointed out that his view is not obscured by good landscaping but by wild growth which is not maintained and he felt is a fire hazard and refuge for rats' nests. He asked for an avenue to open negotiations which might result in meeting of minds instead of solid wall of hard feelings. MRS. PATRICIA MEZETTA of 2613 Martinez reported that she has re- ceived no cooperation from the Burlingame School District as she had in the past even though she offered to pay to have trees trimmed. MR. ARTHUR NELSON of 1549 Alturas Drive commented that his recol- lection, back to 1951, was that the upper Mills Estate was a dairy and was not covered by trees, but there were trees in the lower area. He understood landslides were due to lack of reg- ulations requiring adequate compaction of soil rather than re- moval of vegetation. MADIN FIORE of 1560 Alturas Drive called attention to a brochure prepared by Park Director Hoffman on the subject of trees, erosion control and privacy. She favored an ordinance as a pressure tactic. She read from the brochure and questioned its preparation if it were not supported. MRS. THELMA McLAUGHLIN of 2518 Hillside Drive stated that within four years she had lost her view across the Bay, and commented on the damage to sewer lines from roots. MRS. MAURICE MINKIN of 2846 Las Piedras Drive complained that copies of Council's questionnaire had not been sent to everyone who had sent letters. She said Council has pictures of her problem. MISS PAMELA MARTIN of 1504 Alturas observed that proponents of an ordinance had in large part left the meeting without listening to comments from everyone. She stated that her parents' and her home has a beautiful view but it was partly obscured by a large tree on the property below. They had not asked that the tree be topped because it was felt topped trees are ugly as they are not usually worked on by professionals. She stated that new res- idents had moved next door recently and, though her parents', redwood tree obscured sunlight on the adjoining property, the new owners had purchased their home knowing of the existence of the tree. She said she felt neighbors should work out equitable solutions to the problems themselves. MR. JIM KORAS of 2853 Mariposa Drive reported he had complete cooperation with his neighbor when he asked permission to have the neighbor's trees trimmed. He quoted Thomas.Jefferson's observation that government serves best that interferes least. MR. AL CARLSON of 2844 Mariposa stated that there had been com- ments about 12 large pine trees planted on his property in 1960, four years before he purchased it. He added that he has always been willing to cooperate but has asked that the trees be trimmed by a professional who is properly insured and that the complain- ant pay the cost of trimming the trees. Councilwoman Barton pointed out that 8 people had signed Mr. Carlson's Letter in opposition to an ordinance. MR. ROBERT D. SHAFER of 1008 Bernal objected to the little pub- lication given to the hearing and the preponderance of pro - legislation people present. He said that though he agreed a view is wonderful, he did not feel that a view could be defined by limitations. He added his family had come to Burlingame because of its trees. MR. ICINERT again spoke and urged that the City maintain the Canyon trees by topping them because thickness added to the pres- sure placed upon him to remove vegetation from his property.. Mayor Crosby suggested he consult with Park Director Hoffman. Mayor Crosby declared the hearing closed. Councilwoman Barton commended the Beautification Commission for an excellent job with a difficult task. She stated that the properties she had visited were excellent examples of the pro- blems described. She reviewed the responses to the Council questionnaire which indicated only 12 of the 35 persons have the problem of no cooperation. The mechanics of equitable legis- lation is difficult. Although she believed government has to step in when health, welfare or safety of human beings is con- cerned, she feels this type of legislation would be interfering with personal property rights. Councilman Martin commented on the loss of his view because of houses in the Mills estate and said he did not know how legis- lation could restore it. There would be difficulty in restricting the definition of "view1° which should be protected. If an ordin- ance were considered he thought there should be no cost to the City in view of the mandate of Proposition 13. He foresaw dif- ficulty in wording an ordinance which entitles a property owner to a view that may have existed 15 years ago. He agreed with Mrs. Barton that legislation should be avoided and recommended that residents of the Mills Estate investigate existing covenants that are enforceable by individuals, not the City. Councilman Mangini said he felt the proposed ordinance would be an insurmountable task for the City to administer. Though he sympathized with the owners of the properties he had visited, he did not believe all the taxpayers of Burlingame should absorb the costs of the limited number of residents. If an ordinance were enacted to protect views, he would favor including preserv- ation of sunlight for gardens. Councilman A.mstruo, as a resident of the Mills Estate, commented that he had also lost a view but that he would not ask his neigh- bor to take down his trees. He stated that he felt that a leg- islated view could not be defined or restricted. Mayor Crosby sympathized with the property owners in favor of an ordinance because he also was familiar with the Mills Estate when much of the land was a dairy. However, he indicated that he felt Burlingame is a neighborly City and in many cases a more realistic effort to communicate would be effective. He agreed with other councilpersons that Proposition 13 indicated taxpayers do not want more government regulation. If there were an ordinance, he said he believed the entire cost should be borne by the people who have the problem, not the taxpayers generally. Mayor Crosby questioned whether action or a formal decision was necessary. Mr. Coleman felt formal action was not necessary. MR. CY EPSTEIN of Richmond California, addressed Council as an attorney who had been helping the Burlingame Homeowners for View Preservation. He reported that he had examined the Mills Estate covenants and restrictions and did not believe they provide a viable basis for litigation to curb the growth of trees. He asked Council, out of respect for the efforts of most of those present, to consider creating a private nuisance cause of action arising out of obstruction of views by ordinance. This, he felt, would give property owners redress to courts if soliciting co- operation were ineffective. In answer to Councilmaa,Martin, Mr. Coleman said that, to his knowledge, any ordinance establishes a law that the city is re- quired to enforce. Council directed that Mr. Coleman report back results of any consultations he might have with Mr. Epstein with regard to feasibility of such legislation. Councilman Amstrup suggested consideration to Council desig- nation of a group to act as arbiters or negotiators between neighbors without the stamp of approval by the City. Council- man Martin suggested investigation of arbitration groups in the. Bay Area organized for this type of activity. He suggested contacting the Association of Arbitrators to locate the proper organization. Mayor Crosby said that the matter of arbitration or negotiation between neighbors would be considered at a future study meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. EVELYN" H. HILL City Clerk 285