Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2023.10.05BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Approved Minutes October 5, 2023 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Bauer. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bauer, Commissioner Batte, Chu, Khoury, and Kirchner Absent: None Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Batte made a motion to approve the August 3, 2023, Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chu and was approved 5-0-0. CORRESPONDENCE None. PUBLIC COMMENT Director Glomstad introduced new staff member, America Diaz, who will assist the Parks Division for the next few months. OLD BUSINESS 1. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update Commissioner Kirchner reported that the Washington Park chapter of the Trees of Burlingame book has not been completed but is a priority. He explained that he is working on gathering photos and encouraged the rest of the Commissioners to provide any they may have. Further, Commissioner Kirchner asked the Commission for their opinion on including a map of the themed streets. Commissioner Batte asked if there was a list of the current themed blocks. Commissioner Kirchner confirmed there is a list of themed streets and trees. He suggested a map with a key so that readers could identify streets numerically or alphabetically. Lastly, he spoke about the different printing options and confirmed it would remain the same five by 7-inch size as the previous edition. NEW BUSINESS 1. Watering of the Newly Planted Street Trees Commissioner Chu stated that he had seen many leafless young trees that appeared dead from inadequate water. He would like to know what measures the City and the citizens can take to reduce tree mortality, especially in newly planted trees that need more water in the first couple of years. He stated that although the responsibility of watering young trees falls on the property owners who live by the tree, it would be helpful to have passers-by report the tree to the City so they can inspect the tree. Chair Bauer communicated that City Arborist Holtz was present via Zoom and Parks Supervisor Burow would be presenting the staff report. Parks Supervisor Burow presented the staff report and agreed that she had seen some deaths in newly planted trees due to a lack of watering from property owners. She stated this was especially true during the drought in the past few years. She stated that last season's significant rain helped immensely, and she noticed more leaves on trees, and the oak trees produced more acorns, which are all good signs. Parks Supervisor Burow stated that the City hired additional staff to assist with the watering of the trees. This year, there were two part-time City employees whose sole job was to water the trees throughout the City. Parks Supervisor Burow said she would like to focus on getting the public to assist with watering. She stated she used social media such as Instagram and Facebook to address the importance of watering, but it is unknown how much of that got through to residents or how many people it would reach. She thought that people who interacted with the Tree Crew and/or the Commissioners about the importance of watering the trees would most likely be more involved. Parks Supervisor Burow pointed out that one reason could be that most people do not water trees due to the cost of higher water bills. Another reason could be some people did not want a tree where it was planted. Lastly, she added that some people believe the trees do not need extra water, which is not true for the younger trees. She said they need consistent watering for about three to four years and cannot live only from winter rains. The first four years might be more costly, but it would benefit everybody in the community in the long run. She provided some educational opportunities that City staff did in the past. She also noted that she appreciated when people called to notify the City that trees look dry. Parks Supervisor Burow added she would like to educate the public and homeowners about the benefits versus cost and identify opportunities to talk about the subject at public events and make signs. City Arborist Holtz appreciated Commissioner Chu for raising this issue for discussion. He agreed with the suggestion of tabling at events to further engage with the community and answer questions about parks and trees. City Arborist Holtz stated that studies show it takes seven years for a tree to be a net benefit to the community; however, in an urban environment, the average age of a tree is seven years. City Arborist Holtz stated that the City is a community of trees and wanted to continue to engage with the community. He stated that education over the years was noted in the staff report. He asked the Commissioners for their ideas to raise awareness. Commissioner Chu inquired about events the Commissioners could volunteer for. Director Glomstad suggested the Fall Fest and stated that volunteers were needed and welcomed the Commissioners to join staff. She also stated that the Landscape Award presentation would be an opportunity. Further, she explained that the Winter Market is scheduled for December 2 and 3, and the Commissioners could have a table and materials to pass out and engage with the community. 2. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. Parks Supervisor Burow provided a summary of the application process for the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree located at 1134 Douglas Ave. She explained that the majority of the tree base resides on 1134 Douglas Ave. however, it grows at a slant, and most of the canopy is on 1132 Douglas Ave. The application for the removal of a protected tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. was approved by the City Arborist due to the form of the tree leaning and significantly growing on 1132 Douglas Ave. as well as implications on the fence and driveway. Parks Supervisor Burow stated that although the tree has good vigor and good structure, poor form was the reason for allowing the tree's removal. The lean is severe and is creating an off -balance canopy. The upper branches lean significantly atop the roof of 1132 Douglas Ave., and the tree has overgrown its space. Parks Supervisor Burow stated that the appeal was due to the tree softening the area and an approved yet - to -build development (the project was abandoned in 2019). In addition, another oak tree on the adjacent property died, and the tree added to the overall beauty and shade of 1132 Douglas Ave. The tenant at 1132 Douglas Ave. offered to take over maintenance responsibilities and liabilities. City Arborist Holtz also noted the liability to the property owner if the tree were to remain. The liability exists because most of the trunk base is on 1134 Douglas Ave., and the trunk, not the canopy, dictates ownership. He noted that pruning the tree to not have an exaggerated lean would trim more than typically recommended by industry practice. City Arborist Holtz stated the applicant was concerned about the driveway and fence. He said that driveways and fences are not considered in the Municipal Code as a reason for removal. Commissioner Kirchner questioned if the oak tree dropped limbs occasionally or if it was a stable tree. City Arborist Holtz stated that oak trees are known for having strong and high ratings of branch attachments compared to other species, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a structural defect that is not visible. He stated this tree may have lost structural integrity as it appears that the roof of 1132 Douglas Ave. is supporting it. He told the Commission that the tree has had little to no maintenance from either property owner. Correcting the situation, preventing any damage to the roof, and going with fire guidelines (trimming vegetation away from roof lines) would require removing a significant amount of canopy and live tissue. Chair Bauer questioned if the pruning of the canopy where the tree touches the house/roof would cause the tree to come down. City Arborist Holtz stated that he could not answer that for certain. One challenge is the dense canopy has shaded out interior foliage. There may not be a specific branch to cut to. When performing heading cuts or reduction pruning, it is important to cut to a branch that is at least one-third of the diameter of the branch that you are cutting to, and because Coast Live Oak trees have such dense canopies, there is not a lot of interior growth. Ideally, there should be a 10-foot clearance from the roof line. He said 30% to 40% of the canopy would have to be removed to achieve this goal. City Arborist Holtz stated they would have a lot of stub cuts, a cut to a branch without a lateral branch. The branch would be a stub, and the tree would push out waterspouts and would require annual pruning to train the tree. He said that, in his opinion, this is an extraordinary requirement for the owner of the tree. He stated there had been verbal conversations between the parties but was unaware of any agreement. He noted that after speaking with the City Attorney, liability could not be reassigned to 1132 Douglas Ave. They could take over the maintenance of the tree, but the liability would remain on 1134 Douglas Ave. as the owner of the tree. Commissioner Khoury questioned the aesthetics of the tree and whether the removal of 30% of the branches would still be aesthetically pleasing. City Arborist Holtz stated that the tree would not look the same and agreed with Commissioner Khoury that the tree in its current condition is a healthy, vigorous tree but has poor form with lean and significant growth over 1132 Douglas Ave. Commissioner Khoury asked about the age of the tree. City Arborist Holtz estimated the tree to be about 50-70 years old. He stated it did not appear to be a tree that was intentionally planted. Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment from parties not part of the action. Burlingame resident stated that perhaps the tree could get pruned and observed. If the tree does not grow to the desired position, then take the tree down. She thought the tree was a beautiful heritage tree and brought joy. She stated she watched the tree grow and feels the tree should get a chance to get trimmed and see how it reacts before it gets removed. John Root, the first appellant, stated that he supported retaining the oak tree at 1132/1134. He stated that a 27-unit, five -story building was approved for 1128 — 1132 Douglas Ave. in 2016-2017. Three large trees were at the front of the large property: two oak trees and one Redwood tree. He stated one oak tree had died, and if the tree was removed, it would only leave one tree on the lot. He asked for consideration to retain the oak tree as it is special. Lisa Brady, the second appellant, is the tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave. and has lived there for 13 years. She stated she got ill and could not spend the money on the landscaping like she used to. The oak tree has become a friend to her and provides shade for cooling. She stated everyone in the community loves that tree. Ms. Brady stated that she told her landlord, Henry, who lives in China most of the year, that she would take the financial burden and that the tree could come down if it didn't work out. Dion Heffran, the Respondent, stated he is not emotional about the tree. The tree was fine when it wasn't leaning much and started to deform the fence. He stated the tree was falling slowly. He offered that perhaps the rain did it last year, and he got concerned about the threat to life or limb and his liability. Mr. Heffran said that he did not want to be responsible for liability and spoke to an Attorney. He estimated the tree had been there for more than 70 years. He stated that Ms. Brady has done nothing to care for the tree over the past 14 years. Mr. Heffran stated he felt it is partially Ms. Brady's fault that he must spend $5,000.00 to remove the tree and does not want any liability. Commissioner Chu questioned if the tree was literally on the line. City Arborist Holtz clarified that 90% of the tree, which is the canopy, was over 1132 Douglas Ave. Tree ownership is taken at the base of the tree, and whoever has over 50% of the tree base is the owner. He stated the City staff are not surveyors. Mr. Heffran claimed ownership of the tree, and no one from 1132/1128 Douglas Ave. protested that he was the rightful owner. At this time, there is no dispute on the ownership. Chair Bauer stated that whoever owns the tree has the liability. If the tree were to fall and cause damage, the owner of the tree was liable. Commissioner Batte questioned if 1132 Douglas Ave. was taking liability. Chair Bauer stated yes; however, Ms. Brady, at 1132 Douglas Ave., is a tenant and not an owner of the property. The owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. is in China. She stated she was unsure if the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. could legally take responsibility for the tree. Commissioner Chu asked if a resident applied to remove a tree and the City denied it or if there is an appeal and the Commission approved the appeal, does liability remain with the homeowner? He stated it would seem unjust for the liability to remain on the owner because they tried to have it removed. City Arborist Holtz explained that he could not get into details due to Attorney -Client privilege conversations, but that was what the property owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. referred to in his conversation with his Attorney. Chair Bauer stated that it either needs to be pruned, and it is unknown what would be left, or it must be removed. City Arborist Holtz mentioned that a property owner can prune up to 25% of their neighbor's tree over their property line, as long as it doesn't cause tree failure or health issues. Commissioner Batte asked if this must be addressed immediately. City Arborist Holtz stated that this situation was not an imminent risk based on the observations out in the field. Commission Kirchner stated that he was unsure that the future care of the tree could be assigned to the adjacent property owner. He agreed it is a great tree and felt it was unfair to burden the property owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. with the liability. Chair Bauer stated she is concerned about the owner's liability even though the tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave. stated she would be responsible. Since the property owner wasn't there, the Commission couldn't ask his opinion. She said that she agreed with Commissioner Kirchner. Commissioner Batte stated she was concerned about dealing with the tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave. and not the property owner. She said that the tenant can't legally be responsible because they do not own property and is concerned for the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. and the legal liability. She agreed with Commissioner Kirchner. Ms. Brady questioned if they could get an extension so she could contact her landlord, the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave., to see if he would accept the liability. Chair Bauer stated they could postpone the decision until the next meeting, but she questioned what it would accomplish. She stated they have the Municipal Code to guide approving or denying a removal, including disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways, other trees, leaning on house, interfering with public utilities, etc. Commissioner Chu stated that City Arborist Holtz mentioned there was no dispute in ownership of the tree but questioned if the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. is aware of the proceedings. Ms. Brady stated she emailed the documents to the owner, who is in China, and his sister confirmed he received them. She stated they would like to do a survey to determine ownership of the tree. City Arborist Holtz stated that if there were a dispute of ownership, the parties would need to hire a licensed surveyor to mark exactly where the property line was. Commissioner Chu stated he would like to move the matter to next month's meeting, given that there is no imminent risk of failure. Chair Bauer questioned if they are postponing to see if the owner will accept responsibility for the tree and survey. Commissioner Batte inquired whether the Commission needs to hear from the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. to see if he will pick up the cost for the survey. Ms. Brady texted the property owner, stating she would take responsibility for the cost of the survey. Director Glomstad stated the parties should return with proof of ownership and a letter from the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. accepting liability. Commissioner Chu made a motion to postpone the agenda item until the November 2, 2023, Beautification Commission Meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Khoury and approved 5-0-0. REPORTS Director Glomstad reported that the City Council decided to keep the Lemon Scented Gum theme species on Easton Dr. She stated that the Muddy Mile is scheduled for Saturday, October 21, 2023, the Fall Fest will take place on Sunday, October 29, 2023, the Tree Lighting is scheduled for Friday, December 1, 2023, and the Winter Craft Fair scheduled for December 2 and 3. Lastly, a presentation for the Business and Residential Landscape Awards will take place at the October 16, 2023 City Council Meeting. Commissioner Chu and Commissioner Koury both agreed to present the PowerPoint and awards. CWIIIII Mid IN " There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for November 2, 2023. Respectfully submitted, -America Pin Z America Diaz Administrative Staff