Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - BC- 2025.2.061 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Final Minutes February 6, 2025 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chair Batte. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Batte, Commissioners Bauer, Chu, and Damico, 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 Bauer made a motion to approve the December 5, 2024, Regular Meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chu and was approved. 5-0 CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT Constance Quirk, resident of Lexington Way, expressed her desire to have the emailed Correspondence and Public Comments read aloud at all public meetings to ensure the live audience is made aware of other residents' concerns. Further, she would like online viewers to have the option of participating in the meeting by raising their hands and being allowed to make comments or ask questions. She believes it is important to get people involved and their voices heard, and she feels that many barriers have been put in place to prevent this from happening. PRESENTATION None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. Chair Rotation Secretary Flores presented the staff report. The Commissioners accepted their new roles and Chair Chu led the proceedings for the remainder of the meeting. 2. Business Landscape Award, Residential Sustainable Landscape Award, and Multi-Family Landscape Award Chair Rotation Secretary Flores presented the staff report. Commissioner Kirchner accepted his role as Committee Chair and Commissioner Damico as Vice Chair. 2 3. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist’s Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1325 El Camino Real Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He explained that the request originally came in for three trees growing between 1321 and 1325 El Camino Real, with the majority of the trunk and canopy residing on 1325 El Camino Real. He confirmed that the middle tree was undersized and not subject to the permit requirements specified in our Municipal Tree Ordinance. The applicant commented on his concern about the risk of failure due to structural tree issues. An independent arborist report was submitted as supplementary documentation. Based on Arborist Holtz’s site observations of the trees and the impact to the driveway at the rear of 1325 El Camino Real, it appeared that the trees met the threshold for removal. He explained his observations of the poor form and location of the trees and stated that the neighborhood impact was not significant although it did impact the view from 1321 El Camino Real. Arborist Holtz summarized the findings of the independent arborist. Further, he explored the site history and conditions dating back to 2011, before the development of 1321 El Camino Real, and the continual pruning away from that site, increasing the off-balance growth of the trees. The reasons listed above meet the criteria for removal of our Tree Ordinance. Arborist Holtz stated the City received two appeals to his decision to approve the removal of the trees. He explained there are many reasons to retain Coast Live Oak Trees and that decisions to approve the removal of trees are never made lightly. He spoke of the benefits these trees are to 1321 El Camino Real, such as barriers to light and noise pollution. Although the City requires replacement trees to be planted, it will not replace mature and established trees equally. These were the primary reasons listed on the appeals. Chair Chu opened the floor to Public Comment. Seeing none, he closed Public Comment. Property owners of 1321 El Camino Real, Scott and Martha Ann Milliken, spoke of their appeal to the City Arborist’s decision. They stated that the trees were located entirely within their property, not on both sides of the property line. They provided construction drawings and a site map showing their property's trees. They explained that care and adjustments were made during construction to protect the trees and perform routine yearly maintenance. They expressed their belief that if 1325 El Camino Real maintained the trees on their side of the property, it may have resulted in similar looking trees on both sides. Further, they explained that having the trees remain is an important part of their tenants’ quality of life. The Milliken’s asked the Commission to consider an effective maintenance plan for 1325 El Camino Real instead of their removal. The 1321 El Camino Real tenants Mia and Gunther Nacke presented their appeal. They explained the trees were a reason to live in the townhouse and their unit specifically. Mrs. Nacke researched previous appeals and noted that a high-risk factor was common in the denied appeals. She stated that in the 10 years they have resided at 1321 El Camino Real, they have not seen any tree maintenance conducted by 1325 El Camino Real. Ms. Nacke spoke of a different tree to the east of their unit that they were more concerned about during storms, unlike the trees closest to their unit. It would dramatically change their environment and ask that a maintenance plan be considered first. Mr. Nacke stated that he was a general contractor, and his comments stem from technical and engineering perspectives. He stated that the trees are very stable and do not pose a danger. He agreed that there is little space to drive through on the neighboring property but stated that the rear resident confirmed it is not as big of an issue as the fence at the front of the property. Also, it is his understanding that the tree struck by the car occurred due to space limitation, which is no longer an issue. Mr. Nacke shared his belief that the current driveway issues could be handled with minor 3 repairs. Also, he spoke of the current benefits to the ecosystem and the negative impact of removing the trees, such as a dramatic change to the atmosphere, including noise pollution, and its impacts on wildlife and young families. The original applicant and owner of 1325 El Camino Real, Mehdi Shahmirza, stated that he had not previously been made aware of the site map showing the location of the trees not on his property but on 1321 El Camino Real. He explained that the trees are in his driveway and that tree growth will eliminate access to the driveway and important clearances, such as fire truck access. He spoke of his desire for removal due to safety concerns and explained that he also enjoys the Oak trees' beauty. Mr. Shahmirza stated he is happy to plant more trees on his property or at 1321 El Camino Real if preferred. Chair Chu opened the floor to Commission Discussion. Chair Chu stated that ownership of the trees needed to be established before any decision could be made and asked to see the construction drawings. Director Glomstad explained that a certified site survey would be necessary to confirm the location of the trees rather than a site plan. Arborist Holtz explained that the evidence of construction drawings that included a site plan was only now being introduced, and the City did not have any information to verify property lines. He stated that if the trees were located at 1321 El Camino Real, the liability of the trees failing would also reside with them. Commiss ioner Kirchner asked whether a civil engineer drew the drawings being presented. Mr. & Mrs. Milliken confirmed they were and had previously been submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. Commissioner Kirchner asked whether a neighbor could petition to have trees removed that are not on his property. Arborist Holtz confirmed that they would not be able to. He explained that while conducting a site visit, the trees would appear to be on 1325 El Camino Real because the site improvement s were completed on the opposite side of the trees, leading a person to conclude the property lines exist where the improvements stopped. Commissioner Kirchner inquired whether 1325 El Camino Real would be subject to the 25% pruning restriction to mitigate any potential issue. Arborist Holtz confirmed that the general rule when it comes to trees on property lines is that the neighbors can prune up to 25% of the tree so long as it does not structurally alter or destabilize the tree. He explained that 1325 El Camino Real could trim up to 25% of the canopy, but seeing as 80% of the canopy hangs over their property, they would not be able to achieve the same type of clearance as 1321 El Camino Real. Chair Chu asked whether the continued pruning and maintenance on 1321 would encourage growth over 1325 El Camino Real to look more balanced. Arborist Holtz said the trees have been regularly directionally pruned away from 1321 El Camino Real toward 1325 El Camino Real, creating significant flaws. He stated that continued pruning to train it back could work, but it is not within the Commission's or Staff's purview to require anyone to comply. Commissioner Damico asked why it was not previously possible for 1321 El Camino Real to prune on the other side of the trees to reduce any risk of future toppling. Arborist Holtz stated that many appeals are emotion based and stem from neighbor issues. He confirmed that many scenarios could occur if neighbors communicated and worked together to remedy the situation without involving the City. He explained that 1321 El Camino Real would need permission from 1325 El Camino Real to enter the property, but 1325 El Camino Real was not obligated to allow someone to trespass on their property. He understands that 1321 El Camino Real has directionally pruned their side of the trees, expecting that 1325 El Camino Real would 4 prune their side. There is no obligation for either property owner to take any action, but the liability would lie with the property owner of the site where the tree trunk is located. Furthermore, if 1325 El Camino Real believes the trees impede access, it becomes a civil issue between both property owners. Commissioner Damico referenced the photograph provided, which shows an SUV that narrowly fits, and expressed her concern about safety vehicles being able to get through. City Arborist Holtz agreed with Commissioner Damico but pointed out that the wheels of the SUV are on 1321 El Camino Real and a surveyor would need to verify where the property line lies and whether access to the rear of the property at 1325 El Camino Real is at all possible, barring a lack of easement agreement. Commissioner Kirchner asked whether the trees would heal from the vehicular damage they had endured. Arborist Holtz confirmed that Oak trees were very good compartmentalizers of decay; however, every impact introduces the potential for decay or can be a terminal disease such as sudden oak death. Commissioner Bauer asked whether there was any imminent danger. City Arborist Holtz stated that he did not view anything that would prompt the evacuation of a home. He viewed the site conditions and what is stated in the City’s Municipal Code and determined that the challenges with the tree outweighed the benefits of retaining them. He understood and agreed that there would be a large impact on 1321 El Camino Real and that his decision was not made lightly. Chair Chu and Arborist Holtz agreed that if the ownership of the trees belongs to 1321 El Camino Real and they decided to retain them, the liability that has been confirmed by the public notice of increased risk of the trees, the professional assessment that was conducted, and the City agreeing that the trees meet the threshold for removal would fall on them as well. Commissioner Batte asked whether the ownership of the trees was still in question. Director Glomstad suggested that the item be returned to the Commission once a survey has been presented to confirm ownership. Mr. Shahmirza addressed the Commission and stated that he had not previously seen the 1321 El Camino Real drawings showing the trees on their property. Commissioner Bauer asked whether he had a survey demonstrating the trees on his property. Mr. Shahmirza did not currently have a survey of his property. Mr. Milliken asked whether Mr. Shahmirza had permission to cut more than 25% of the tree canopy. Arborist Holtz confirmed that trimming more than 25% would be considered excessive pruning and require a permit. The active permit could be modified to an excessive pruning permit, but would require permission from whoever is determined to be the owner. Chair Chu asked what documentation could be obtained to verify ownership. Director Glomstad stated that an official or certified site survey would be needed to verify property lines. Secretary Flores stated that either property owner could also research the property’s public records filed with the Building and Planning Departments to see if a survey was previously filed and formally request copies. Chair Chu asked whether the smallest of the three trees was protected by diameter size and was a protected species. Arborist Holtz confirmed the City does not have protected species, only tree size. However, Oak and Redwood trees typically require an independent arborist report as supplemental documentation for their permit application because both species can live a long time and are significant contributors to our community. Commissioner Damico asked whether the two owners had discussed shared maintenance responsibilities of the trees. The properties shared offline feedback. Arborist Holtz shared that the City pays for conflict resolution services through the County of San Mateo and is available at no cost to Burlingame residents. 5 Commissioner Bauer made a motion to postpone any decision until further evidence of ownership is provided by either the applicant or appellant. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Damico and was approved. 5-0 4. Themed Block Discussion Arborist Holtz presented the staff report. He provided a history and background on themed blocks and spoke of the Easton Drive petition that occurred approximately a year and a half ago. He confirmed that the current discussion did not include Easton Drive but focused on themed blocks in general. He explained that a themed block is an area with one defined species, either already established or a shift over time, but clarified that the City is not clear-cutting trees to plant any specific tree. He spoke of the challenges themed blocks posed, such as lack of species diversification, utility conflict, and maintenance cost. Although there are main issues to consider, he does not believe we will experience devastation such as a pest attack in the near future. Arborist Holtz explained that the item presented today is an introduction for Commissioners to ask questions and request additional information or ideas from staff about possible modifications. Further, he stated that out of the 938 blocks in Burlingame, 122 of them are themed blocks. Of the 122 themed blocks, 70 have utilities. He estimated that a quarter of the trees planted in the City are in utility conflicts. Commissioner Bauer inquired about the replacement options for themed block streets. Arborist Holtz confirmed that they only have one dominant species per themed block, although changes have been made to those dominant species in some circumstances, such as the pear trees on California Drive. He explained that the Commission was being introduced to the challenges staff have experienced. Commissioner Batte asked if there was a tree that was less likely to interfere with utilities. Arborist Holtz stated that the trees on the City’s Primary Utility Plant List present the lowest potential for utility conflicts. Commissioner Batte commented on the recent fires in Southern California, which were partly caused by utility conflicts. Arborist Holtz stated that staff have received many phone calls and correspondence from residents regarding similar fears set off by insurance cancellation notices. Chair Chu asked whether there has been a consideration for having a themed block with utilities and one species for the side of the street and another for the other. According to his knowledge, Arborist Holtz confirmed that it had not occurred previously in the City. Commissioner Kirchner asked if PG&E was involved in the pruning of the trees. Arborist Holtz confirmed that PG&E contracts with different utility companies and is required to maintain a certain distance. They will prune trees to meet those requirements, often exceeding the requirements to avoid having to prune as frequently. He stated that City staff also prune trees to address overhanging branches or water sprouts that may impede pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Supervisor Burow confirmed that the clearance required by PG&E in the City’s area is two and a half feet, but trees are often pruned 12-15 feet away to avoid coming out for a minimum of two years. Further, she stated that pruning such large amounts causes water sprouts to grow much faster, an issue requiring annual inspection. Commissioner Damico asked whether the staff had received any positive feedback from themed blocks. Arborist Holtz stated that correspondence has been received in favor of themed blocks' majestic look and feel. Commissioner Bauer asked about correspondence from Newlands resident Cathy Baylock and whether her block was removed from the themed block list. Arborist Holtz explained that the Newlands block was inexplicably dropped off the themed block list by error but that the mistake was well-noted and has been updated on our list. Commissioner Damico asked how specific themes are picked. City Arborist Holtz explained that the framers of the City chose species during development, and the Commission, at the time of adoption, decided whether to continue with the established dominant species or replace it with a similar species with the same look or feel. 6 Chair Chu opened Public Comment. Burlingame resident Kristine Cannon stated that she lives on the 1300 Themed Block of Bernal Ave, which is sycamore Themed. She spoke highly of the tree maintenance performed by the City and the responsiveness of staff when residents reach out to them. She spoke in favor of themed blocks and the Sycamore tree theme. She explained that homes are purchased with the knowledge of the City-owned and maintained trees adjacent to the property, and because they like the uniformity it creates with the rest of the street, not because they want the tree species changed. She admitted that there is always a chance of issues arising, such as the Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive, but strongly supports themed blocks regardless. She thanked the Commission for its attention to the Themed Block policy and hoped they would vote to keep the parameters as they are when it comes time to vote on a decision. Resident Constance Quirck spoke in favor of themed blocks. She urged the Commission to keep the immediate area near Lexington Way as a heritage grove of Sycamore trees. She said the established themes and mature trees were key factors in purchasing a Burlingame home. The City works diligently to maintain the City street trees and she appreciates the Parks Division for their hard work. She explained that many trees have been removed in the last five years because local zoning control has been negatively impacted in California, and keeping large, themed trees softens the aesthetics of the City. She spoke of the Plant-A- Tree program and how she learned the need for and importance of deep-watering young trees to ensure their growth, such as the 10-year-old Sycamore she has in front of her property. Burlingame resident and Historical Society member Jennifer Pfaff spoke in favor of themed blocks. She provided a history of how tree species were determined and planted in the 1900s and how the choice of replacement trees stemmed from the hope that the residents would be more invested in the trees' watering needs. She stated that themed blocks comprise less than a quarter of the City’s streets and are typically intersected by non-themed streets, providing some diversity. The importance of the City’s Themed Block policy could not be understated. They are memorable City assets that strengthen the visual cohesiveness of many neighborhoods. She spoke of the extensive development on lots that leave little room for landscaping and trees, such as the last two homes that were approved through the Site Development process that are not required to plant any trees because there is no space to do so; making the importance of our City street trees much higher than it has ever been. Chair Chu closed Public Comment and Commission discussion ensued. Commissioner Kirchner spoke of his fondness of the themed streets and stated his inclination to keep the Themed Block Policy and its parameters as is. He spoke of the historical aspects of themed blocks and does not believe any modification is necessary. He would like staff to elaborate on the issue and more information about the themed streets facing utility conflicts. He agreed with Chair Chu on exploring different options for those blocks and the sides of the street affected. Commissioner Bauer inquired whether the topic arose as an informational session or whether action to remove themed block designations was the end goal. Arborist Holtz confirmed that aside from public comments staff received, Council Member Brownrigg expressed concern about our practice of planting large canopy trees under utility lines and them becoming a perennial conflict. If the Commission would like more information on any challenge presented, staff can research and bring it back to the Commission for 7 review and consideration. The Commission may also feel that no further discussion is needed. Commissioner Bauer asked whether Carol Avenue was a themed street. Arborist Holtz confirmed that although the Palm trees are designated as historic trees, Carol is not a themed block nor are Palm trees planted by the City as new or replacement trees. Commissioner Kirchner explained that Carol Avenue was developed in 1905, and the Palm trees were there before the homes. City Arborist Holtz explained that the City owns and maintains approximately 17,000 trees, 2,600 being themed trees, amounting to 15% of City trees being dedicated to Themed trees. Further, 3,740 trees are located under utilities, 600 being themed areas. Chair Chu reiterated the option of having two different species of trees where there are utility lines on one side. He stated that having large trees under utility lines kept pruned may create a bad example for residents who do not know they are pruned that way due to the utility conflicts and may lead them to believe they are approved pruning practices. Director Glomstad confirmed with the Commission that they would like staff to bring back options and ideas focused on utility conflicts and themed blocks. Arborist Holtz emphasized that the public has expressed a desire to be more informed when making decisions that affect them, which increases the amount of public outreach on this topic. REPORTS Supervisor Burow reported that tree plantings as part of our seasonal street tree plantings are steadily on the rise, and there has also been an increase in plantings in new locations that either have not had a tree in a long time or have never had one. Arborist Holtz stated that city trees are holding up well in the current weather events we’ve experienced and thanked the Commission and Council for investing in the major preventive tree work to protect our community. Director Glomstad explained that the rule of no longer reading public comments out loud during Commission meetings came directly from the City Council and cannot be changed at a Commission level. Commissioner Kirchner provided the Commission and staff drafts of the new Trees of Burlingame publication for review, edits, and feedback. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Director Glomstad confirmed Themed Blocks, with guidance provided by the Commission, will be back on a future agenda. Chair Chu said he would like the Adopt-a-Tree program discussed at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for March 6, 2025. Respectfully submitted, 8 Veronica Flores Veronica Flores Recording Secretary