HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC - 2023.11.02BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
Approved Minutes November 2, 2023
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by
Chair Bauer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Bauer, Commissioner Khoury, Kirchner and
Batte (arrived at 6:38 p.m.)
Absent: Commissioner Chu
Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, and
Recording Secretary Diaz
Others: None
MINUTES
Chair Bauer made a motion to approve the October 5, 2023, Regular Meeting minutes. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Khoury and was approved. 3-0-0 (Batte was absent)
CORRESPONDENCE
None
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jennifer Pfaff stated that she had an idea to honor the trees of Burlingame. She suggested that the
community be able to nominate a tree of their choice, and that tree get an award. Ms. Pfaff stated that there
are landscape awards. Dale Perkins did paintings to honor trees, and it was her idea to broaden the
beautification awards.
OLD BUSINESS
1. Continuation of 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 Superintendent Holtz summarized the staff report for the Commissioners and why he approved
removing the tree. He noted that at the last meeting, there was a question about ownership and that the item
was continued to allow more time to determine ownership.
Parks Superintendent Holtz also noted that at the previous meeting, there was a discussion about 1132
Douglas Ave. taking liability for the tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. He stated that no agreement had been
reached to his knowledge. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that Commission action was required to
determine if the application met the conditions for removal under the Municipal Code.
Chair Bauer questioned if there were any updates from the tenant at 1132 Douglas Ave.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated no updated information had been received since the last meeting.
Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment from parties not part of the action.
With no one wishing to speak from the public, Chair Bauer closed public comment.
Lisa Brady, the first appellant and tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave., stated she was unsuccessful in reaching
her landlord, Henry, who lived in China. She shared that she only emails with her landlord or his sister.
Ms. Brady got ahold of Henry's sister and asked if she could help get ahold of Henry.
Chair Bauer stated that the property owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. needed to be involved in the discussion.
She stated that as a tenant, Ms. Brady did not have legal status for the tree.
Ms. Brady stated that she has renters' insurance, and from research that she had done, homeowner insurance
companies are responsible for damage caused by a healthy tree if it were to fall due to a tornado, hurricane,
or winter storm. She stated that the homeowner would not be responsible unless the tree was in poor health,
and the homeowner was aware and did not take action to cut down the tree before the storms caused any
damage. Ms. Brady stated that she would pay for the trimming of the tree to give it six months to see how
it reacted. She stated that the tree offered a great amount of shade as she did not have air conditioning. Ms.
Brady stated that she had lived on the property for 13 years and asked Henry to take care of the tree
maintenance. She stated that although she had not taken care of the tree maintenance in the past, she was
now willing to take on the maintenance costs.
John Root, the second appellant, lives across the street from 1134 Douglas Ave. He stated that there was
no imminent danger and only minor disruption to the driveway. Mr. Root suggested giving the tree a chance
while Ms. Brady could get in contact with the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. He stated that the tree was one
of the key elements for the development plans and removing the tree would make it less appealing as there
would only be one redwood tree left out of three trees that were originally there in total.
Dion Heffran, the Respondent, apologized to the Commissioners for leaving last month's meeting early.
He asked the Commission if they had a chance to see the tree trunk.
Chair Bauer stated yes, everyone from the Commission had a chance to see the tree.
Mr. Heffran stated that the trunk had moved about 3 to 4 inches in six months and was pulling the fence
down. He said that in the last rain cycle, the trunk started to move towards 1132 Douglas Ave. Mr. Heffran
stated that for the last 14 years, he had not had an issue with the tree, but that had changed due to his legal
liability. He said he was concerned because the tree was dangerous to life and limb. He requested that if
the appeal was approved and the tree was trimmed, Ms. Brady would be required to post a performance
bond with the City of Burlingame for $5,000.00, which was the cost of taking down the tree and removing
the debris.
Gloria Heffran, the wife of the Respondent, stated she went to 1132 Douglas Ave. to talk to Ms. Brady with
the hope of getting the landlord's contact information. She said she wanted to contact the landlord since he
did not return in October, as Ms. Brady stated. Mrs. Heffran expressed concern as the rainy season was
approaching and having to wait more time. She gave an example of the trees along California Drive, stating
that if action had not been taken and they would have waited another month or two, people could have died
with the trees coming down. Mrs. Heffran stated that Ms. Brady said she would take on the maintenance
cost but was concerned it would not happen since Ms. Brady stated she did not have the money at the last
meeting.
Burlingame resident stated that she missed her opportunity to speak and requested to be able to speak.
Director Glomstad stated that if public comment was opened again, everyone would have a chance to speak
again.
Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment.
Ani Safavi stated she has been a Burlingame resident for more than 22 years. She said her concern about
protected trees being approved for removal due to safety and the City's concerns about liability and
development over tree preservation. Ms. Safavi stated the trees belong to the citizens of Burlingame and
suggested more consideration before removing the trees. She said trees are needed for everyone's well-
being and wildlife and to combat climate change. She stated she was in opposition to the tree removal.
Jennifer Pfaff stated she also owned a Coastal Live Oak tree, loved her tree, and saw why Ms. Brady loved
that tree so much. Ms. Pfaff said she thought the tree should be trimmed and see how the tree did. She
stated that if the tree did not do well, then the tree should be removed.
Linda Ryan, resident of 1532 Drake Ave., stated she was an avid dog walker. For 23 years, she has
witnessed the removal of protected trees and said the replacements had not been with significant trees. Ms.
Ryan stated that if the tree did get removed, it should be replaced with a 24-inch box tree.
Leslie McQuaide stated that she owned property in Carmel, her cousin owned property in Del Mar, and she
had friends in Portola Valley, Atherton, and Hillsborough. She stated that in those cities, they did not
remove trees. If construction must be done or if a house was remodeled, it must be done in a way that trees
were not removed. Ms. McQuade stated they were beautiful communities because they kept their trees,
and she would like to see the same for Burlingame.
Chair Bauer closed the floor to public comment.
Commissioner Kirchner questioned if pruning the tree would mitigate any future failure.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated further testing could be done on the tree to help identify any future
problems. He noted the tree could be a candidate for pruning. Still, the pruning would be beyond what
was typically recommended and would subject the owner of the tree to significant remediation pruning.
When performing heading cuts or reduction pruning, it is important to cut to a branch at least one-third of
the diameter of the branch you are cutting to, which may not be an option with this tree. That does not
mean the cut could not be made, but the tree would have epicormic sprouting, leading to a bush tree/broccoli
tree. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that to have strong, healthy, long-term branches, annual pruning
would be required for several years. He added that Chapter 11.06 of the Municipal Code, Urban
Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance, section 11.06.060 allows removal for the following reasons:
(d) (1) the condition of the tree with respect to the proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards,
driveway, and other trees... and, (d)(7) the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to
remain, which stay with the owner of the tree. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the parties can work out
an agreement privately, but the determination of whether the tree meets that threshold for removal was the
decision before the Commission.
Commissioner Batte questioned who is financially responsible for the tree removal cost.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the tree owner would take on the cost. He said that 1134 Douglas
Ave. owns the tree and overhangs onto 1132 Douglas Ave. The tree could be pruned by 1132 Douglas
Ave. without permission from 1134 Douglas Ave. up to 25% over their property line so long as it does not
cause tree failure or health issues.
Commissioner Kirchner stated that at the end of last month's meeting, a survey was suggested to determine
the tree's ownership as it seems right on the property line. He stated that he was not aware of any survey
being done. Therefore, the purview remains with the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. Commissioner Kirchner
noted that he favored removing the tree per the City Arborist's recommendation due to the current
conditions of the tree and per the ordinance.
Chair Bauer stated that she agreed with Commissioner Kirchner and favored removing the tree due to its
leaning and maintenance cost. She said putting the liability and cost on the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave
was unreasonable.
Commissioner Khoury stated that everyone on the Commission loved and wanted to protect the trees of
Burlingame. However, there were times when a tree needed to be removed. She stated her concern is the
cost and many years of required maintenance. Commissioner Koury said that per the City Arborist's
recommendation to remove the tree, she agreed due to the tree leaning and the amount of trimming needed,
potentially creating a broccoli tree.
Chair Bauer made a motion to deny the appeal for the removal of 1134 Douglas Ave. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Batte and approved 4-0-0.
Chair Bauer stated the tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. could be removed after the property owner received the
written Commission determination via mail. She stated that to appeal the Commission's decision to the
City Council, an appeal should be filed with the City Clerk's office and an appeal fee of $614.00.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Update to Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation)
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that he would be discussing proposed updates to Chapter 11 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). He shared that some elements of the City's present tree code had not
been updated in 52 years. In 2018, a different City Arborist and City Attorney began the process. Parks
Superintendent Holtz stated that there would be several future meetings to discuss the matter but would be
sharing concepts with the Commission and the community to get feedback before presenting to the Council
and then beginning to develop language changes to the Code. He stated that he had looked at other cities'
municipal codes, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the City of Sacramento, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the goals to be addressed by updated BMC Chapter 11 would be to define
terms and roles which would identify what parties, including City staff and Commission, had authority,
address development to stress the importance of mature tree retention, establish removal criteria to clearly
define what requirements must be met, increase replacement requirements, and increase penalties for failure
to follow the Code including criminal prosecution by the City Attorney.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) were industry leaders in arboriculture. He noted some terms
were being looked at and incorporated into the Code, as well as specific roles for the Parks and Recreation
Director, the City Arborist, the City Manager, the Beautification Commission, and the Planning
Commission. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that currently, for development projects, he was not seeing
the tree removal application until the plans had been approved. He wanted to discuss that process with the
Community Development Department staff and the Planning Commission.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there had been an improvement in protection measures for mature
trees during development in recent years. He said it was important to encourage the retention of large trees
and recognize the important community benefit that these large mature trees play in our community. Parks
Superintendent Holtz stated that the Planning Commission's role would need to be defined to establish their
ability and authorization to request or require changes to retain a mature protected tree. He stated that
sometimes, depending on the site condition or development, the planting space is limited and frequently
excused. The new Code could utilize funds or alternative planting elsewhere in the urban forest for the
community's benefit. He stated that he would also like to be able to empower staff to stop work when any
of these measures are not being followed.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated the proposed update would clarify reasons for tree removal, identify
which are subject to public notification/discussion, the appeal process, and the fees, as it requires a
significant amount of mailing. He stated that the Beautification Commission is currently the leader for the
appeal process in most situations, followed by the City Council. Other communities have appeals overseen
by the City Manager.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that a dead tree should be non -appealable, although some residents think
it could be a living space for critters. He said the Tree Risk Assessment ratings had four levels: low,
moderate, high, and extreme. When a tree was in the high or extreme rating, and there was no appropriate
mitigation measure to reduce the likelihood of failure, it should be non -appealable if the City Arborist
agreed with the independent Arborist report.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the tree health rating would be a tree that was mostly dead or had a
known terminal disease that limited its life within the next year should be non -appealable. He also stated
that some communities have a list of non -desirable species that are not considered appropriate for the urban
environment due to their increased risk or propensity to be invasive. These communities exempt the species
from the appeal process, and Palo Alto exempts them from the application process. Parks Superintendent
Holtz stated that all trees should be subject to the application process because replacement trees should be
protected.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that if a tree was causing verifiable structural damage or damage to a
home via a structural engineer, it should not be appealable. He said that applications due to interference
with utilities would be appealable.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that replacement requirements are currently on a 1:1 basis. He said that
where trees could not be replaced on the required basis, payment would be required to the Tree Replacement
Fund to be utilized for planting and fostering young trees elsewhere in the urban forest. If a larger tree was
removed, there should be greater planting requirements. Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that there should
be more flexibility for the City Arborist to adjust planting requirements to site conditions. There are large
properties that could accommodate more trees. He stated that he had been working with the Assistant City
Attorney on ways to recover the value of the removed trees. The City aimed to educate the public on tree
benefits and Burlingame's rules for protected trees. Parks Superintendent Holtz shared some penalty
scenarios: the property owner removed a dead pine tree without a permit, the City's goal is to educate the
property owner and require a permit post removal and a replacement. When a property owner tops a 100'
redwood tree to 60' without a permit, the City would educate the homeowner and require a permit post
excessive pruning and payment to the Tree Replacement Fund proportionate to the tree canopy removed.
Lastly, if the property owner removed a 60' cedar tree after being denied a permit to do so, the City would
consider criminal prosecution, and the owner would be required to obtain a permit and make a payment to
the Tree Replacement Fund to treble the value of the tree and require replanting.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that this was the beginning stage of the Code update. He didn't have
specific language to share yet, but there would be multiple opportunities for public comment at future
Council meetings. He stated that the current Code dealt with City and private trees separately and would
like them all considered protected trees.
Commissioner Kirchner stated that he is interested in refining the replacement requirements and that the
replacement trees are automatically protected no matter their size. He questioned how it would be
documented or how the tree would be attached to a property owner or a developer.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that an asset management system called Arbor Access was currently
being used for the City trees. He said there is an element in the system that could be used to track private
trees.
Commissioner Kirchner stated that he would like the Commission to be able to review the tree removal
applications that are related to development.
Parks Superintendent Holtz questioned at what stage that would be in.
Commissioner Kirchner stated it would have to be in the preliminary stage. He said there were rules that
if you are within the footprint allowed by building codes, there is no option, and the trees must be removed.
He was looking forward to the pricing requirements for replacements.
Chair Bauer stated that she would like to see that the greater the trunk diameter, the greater the replacement
requirement. She said that she did not think there should be an option to do eight smaller 15-gallon trees
and liked the first level of the removal replacement schedule.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated that the smaller the container that was planted, the faster the tree would
acclimate and grow, and the longer the trees had been in containers and sized up, the longer it could take to
acclimate. From a quantity perspective, he stated that eight smaller 15-gallon trees would do more for the
urban forest than one tree.
Commissioner Khoury questioned if a 15-gallon tree was well maintained could it catch up to a 24-inch
box tree.
Parks Superintendent Holtz stated it could take a couple of years. He stated that it was harder to get larger
trees planted in homes built on hillsides and would require small trees to be planted instead. Park
Superintendent Holtz stated a challenge for Menlo Park was that it was hard for replacements to take place
when the residents are on a fixed income.
Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment.
Leslie McQuade stated that residents were parking between the new Citridora trees planted along Easton.
Ms. McQuade noted that the Commission should work with realtors to stress the importance of trees in the
community to new residents coming to Burlingame and builders. She stated that it was important to keep
the big trees as Burlingame is a City of trees.
Gerard Manning stated that he would like the Commission to consider changes to the Code. Mr. Manning
said that trees overshadowed rooftops, and residents could not put in rooftop solar. He stated that the
climate would change and that Burlingame's residents, who were among the richest communities in the
world, were emitting more carbon dioxide. Mr. Manning stated that a solution was to electrify homes and
use solar power. He said that we need to triple our electricity supply in California by 2045. We do not
have a plan to bring in new transmission lines and would be stuck with power outages in the middle of heat
waves, resulting in people going to the emergency room. Mr. Manning stated he would like the Commission
to consider the pros and cons of tree retention concerning solar as they looked at the new Code.
Jennifer Pfaff stated that she requested planting different trees besides maple trees. She said she was glad
to hear that the new Code was expanding the definition of protected trees and the public benefit of including
newly planted trees in new projects and renovations. Ms. Pfaff stated that in the last decade, she had
witnessed dozens of trees that were lost.
Gordon Foster, a resident of Burlingame for 43 years, stated when he moved to Morrell Ave., there were
four big trees on the corner, and they were no longer there. He said he was worried about the number of
big trees being removed. He was glad to hear about the updates to the ordinance and stated that large trees
created fear and anxiety in residents, especially after big storms, but thought those were not valid reasons
to remove a tree. Mr. Foster stated that he would like carbon sequestration to be a criterion when removing
large trees and planting the replacements.
Linda Ryan stated she was concerned about the time the process was taking because of climate change.
Ms. Ryan said that her neighbor removed two big trees in front of her house eight years ago, which the City
replaced. She stated it took eight years to walk under them and felt time was of the essence. She noted that
it was important for the new ordinance to include notifying more neighbors of tree removals and giving
them more time to appeal. Lastly, she wanted neighbors to be notified when tree removal work was to
occur so they could plan accordingly, as some residents work from home.
Ani Safavi said she was glad to hear that the ordinance was being updated after 50+ years. Ms. Safavi
stated that her concern was that residents were not being informed when a tree was being removed. She
stated the ordinance should apply to everyone because potential residents buying a house in Burlingame vs
a developer may have different interests.
Chair Bauer closed the floor to public comment.
REPORTS
Commissioner Kirchner reported that at the last City Council meeting where the landscape awards were
handed out, there was a point about apartments or apartment balconies being included as part of the design
award criteria. He stated that could be put on the agenda for next month's meeting to discuss.
Commissioner Kirchner suggested that student drawings be given to the owner of the business award, which
could be in memory of Dale Perkins.
Chair Bauer stated there could be a competition with Arbor Day, and the drawing winner could become
part of the landscape award. She stated that the guidelines for next year's landscape awards could be
discussed at the next meeting.
Commissioner Khoury reported that the Christmas lights were up and thanked Director Glomstad, the City
Electrician, the Public Works Department, Jenny Kelleher, and Bay Luminations. She stated that the side
streets could not get lights this year but would have holiday decorations, and 32 planters would be decorated
with flowers.
Director Glomstad reported that Parks Superintendent Holtz was working on door hangers for homeowners
who got a City tree planted to provide information on the benefits and importance of watering trees. She
stated that the door hangers should be ready for the next street tree planting. Director Glomstad also
reported that Administrative Assistant Flores gave birth to a baby boy named Ezequiel. Both mother and
baby are doing well at home. Lastly, the Tree Lighting is scheduled for Friday, December 1, 2023, and the
Commission should confirm their attendance via email to Supervisor Crossfield. The Winter Craft Fair is
scheduled for December 2 and 3.
Parks Superintendent Holtz reported that City staff was hardworking and efficient in planting 38 Citriodora
trees along Easton Drive. He stated that City staff was gearing up for winter preparations and that the city
council had authorized significant work on Eucalyptus trees.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. The next Beautification Commission
meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2023.
Respectfully submitted,
-America Pla?-
America Diaz
Administrative Staff