Correspondences — Burbank City Council, February 14, 2023

Meredith, Alyssa
From:

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:26 AM
To: City Council DL; Mullins, Zizette; Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala Subject: Agenda Item K-6 -amend Title 7 Council Meeting Feb-14-2023 Attachments: 407 South Bel Aire Palm Chop Down 2020.jpg; 40ftTree Replace Cost.jpg; CityBurbank CDD-ParkREC apprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf; CityBurbank PUBWORKPreApprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf; BMC as of 2018-at hearing 10-1-1607 Vehicle Access.paf; PRESCOTT Values Email SLIDE2-redacted.jpg; Circled BEL AIRE Missing Palm - future destroy.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mayor Anthony and Honorable Council Members,
Please include this document, and all attachments in the official correspondence for the public hearing regarding Title 7 and Tree Ordinance (Agenda Item k6).

I am writing to you regarding Agenda Item K-6 with a request that you amend the current ordinance to satisfactorily address the original reasoning and conditions that prompted the past council to request a review of Burbank's parkway tree policies.

In the interest of brevity, I list the two changes requested in the beginning and follow with an explanation of the reasoning - - for those who have an interest or time to read. Given the large public outcry about the iconic Bel Aire Palm, I am certain the public will be looking to know that the Council considered these options before the next tree comes down.

1. Please inquire whether language can be added to our code and design guidelines to require driveway aprons be adapted to protect and preserve City parkway trees with specific explicit language along the lines of:

When a change to any existing parkway access apron is requested to accommodate residential construction, permission shall not be granted approving an apron design or other curb cut that would damage or destroy any City tree determined to be healthy by the arborist when any current legal apron design would preserve such existing trees.

All residential development shall adapt driveway design and access to accommodate City of Burbank apron schematics that offer the possibility of preserving existing City of Burbank property trees, unless no viable alternate construction solution would satisfy building codes related to safety or State of California building law or housing law. Where access through alleyways that abut a property exists, no healthy City Tree may be removed for the enlargement of an existing nor the creation of a new apron cut.

Please inquire if this would require a change to the residential building code, in addition to title 7 in the current version of the ordinance.

The City shall replace, in a timely fashion any illegally removed tree, in the same place where the tree was removed and levy fines to facilitate such replacement at no additional cost to the general 1 public. The Penalty for removing a Tree that is the Property of the City of Burbank shall be a fine assed to be not less than all replacement and repair costs including:
a. Similar species or viable alternative determined by the Forestry department of the closest mature sized tree to allow the greatest probability of long term survival. b. All materials and labor associated with administration, demolition, excavation, procurement, planting and irrigation to provide a replacement tree that meets all current code requirements. Such costs may also include repairs to utility service when such service is disrupted, damaged or incurs a cost associated with remediating the damaged tree. c. Above terms shall be included in contractual conditions of approval for building application signatories.

The reasons for the requests above are related to the incident that inspired the City Council at the time to request this update to the tree ordinances.

Here is the BACKGROUND of the incident:

On June 4, 2020 one of the 70 year old, forty foot tall Iconic Mexican Palms was cut down to accommodate the desires of the owners of 407 South Bel Aire Drive as part of a new two story home construction on a thin 5900 square foot lot. See the color attachment "407 South Bel Aire Palm Chop Down 2020 jpg" picturing the City property being An appeal was brought against the property and was unanimously denied by the Planning Board. However, during the appeal the City agreed to address a number of major code violations and compel the alteration of the project to comply with the code in any area where it remained non-compliant. The appellant chose not to exercise their right to additional Council appeal in the hopes of a good-faith commitment by the City and builder. The multiple rounds of changes were so substantive as to delay beginning construction an additional nine months after the appeal.

A summary of changes to the project, including showing a four foot reduction in overall height, required not to exceed the maximum top-of-plate, can be provided upon request. Unfortunately, the new driveway design, for which there was. both possibility and opportunity to modify, was not altered by the mere few inches needed to save the 70 year old City of Burbank property tree. Additionally, internal City of Burbank documents, obtained by public record requests seem to indicate that policy at the time was not followed and may have offered multiple opportunities to preserve the tree.

It is rumored, although no record has been obtained to confirm, a fine (following a similar formula to the current proposal) was paid by the owner of the property for removing the tree without obtaining a permit. If the Owner had obtained the permit in the same fashion as he had for each of the other separate permits for the development, this also would have triggered a review of the request and may have preserved the tree.

In order to prevent these issues from happening again and in support of the two changes I proposed to the new Tree Ordinance - please consider the following:

Firstly regarding the fine. Please note the attached receipt in the file " 40ftTree Replace Cost": This is quoting the true real world cost of providing and really replacing the destroyed palm tree. This does not include City labor costs, or services repair - and is a few years old. I think it is reasonable to assume that with City labor costs and inflation, the cost would exceed 15 thousand dollars.

The proposed penalty of simply paying a much lower fine price, as is currently included in the ordinance, may simply be seen as the low cost of doing business and not deter many owners from destroying City property. However, if they were forced to actually continually replace the trees they destroy at full cost - this would be a much stronger deterrent. 2 How would any reasonable voter not consider that the people who tore down the generations old iconic Burbank palm tree did not receive a 15 thousand dollar gift from the taxpayers for their private project? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly is HOW the applicants received permission to destroy the tree and were not challenged or compelled to alter their design in a similar way they were made to comply with any other issue specifically raised at the appeal. The tree removal was not specifically challenged during the appeal.

Please note PAGE 4 of the attached document "CityBurbank CDD-ParkREC apprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf". The red markings are provided on this copy of the original unaltered document that can be furnished from the public records request.

Anyone can see that one of the lines on the document indicating that trees should be preserved or destroyed is supposed to be completed, yet the inaccurate and incomplete document has been reviewed and signed by the Parks and Recreation department supervisor.

Even more disturbing, during a June 6 2020 interview with Michael M. del Campo ( City of Burbank Forestry - a Park&Rec department) - it was discovered that paperwork was submitted purporting the tree to be healthy and preservable, and it was troubling to the Forestry division that it was not available. That paperwork was not included Now take note of PAGE 4 of the document "CityBurbank PUBWORKPreApprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf", again we have retained the original and the red-line is provided for reference. Note the following language:
"Show existing and proposed driveway aprons with dimensions. Proposed driveway apron shall require the removal of the palm tree fronting the property and must be stated on plans"….. "Proposed driveway apron shall align with the width of the garage door [ BMC 10-1-16087 ].

Note that the City employee uses language that is very similar to the wording and phrasing used in real City of Burbank codes. To a casual reader, one might be fooled into thinking these requirements are a design guideline, compelled by code. The author also sights a real code number, yet an examination of that code ( see highlight on attachment BMC as of 2018-at hearing 10-1-1607 Vehicle Access.pdf")
The true language of the real code reads as follows:
10-1-1607: APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: All vehicular accessways to the street must be approved by the Public Works Director. [Formerly numbered Section 31-187; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87.] This code not only doesn't EXPLICITLY allow the removal of trees, it doesn't even hint at it, nor indicate that it supersedes the authority of the Parks & Rec Director or standing City policy to approve removal through Forestry, and Parks & Rec.

In fact, both documents were available and their language included for the Community Development Director during initial approval prior to, during, and after appeal. How could the Director not catch the disparity, and require alteration of the drive to one of at least three possible alternatives to preserve the City of Burbank Public property is obligated to protect over private interests?
Now please note the email (attached file: "PRESCOTT Values Email SLIDE2-redacted" from the Community Development Director to a concerned resident sent near the time of the incident. What is important to note is a. The Director did not disclose the City allows several kinds of and designs for different styles of aprons, including a high curb design that has very shallow wings. Only a few inches would have saved the tree and that if this were compelled, the removal would be required as the director implies.

Even more disturbing is that he suggests there are competing values and that by extrapolation we are led to believe there is some value or interest that places the creation of a super wide concrete driveway apron with extended wings 3 above the preservation of City of Burbank Trees that would require coordination of circumventing the Forestry department and employing false code language in order to ignore the Cities climate policies and pave over 70 years of tradition,. It remains a mystery as to what that value might be.

Thus, the reason the trees must be explicitly protected with specific, exact detail is the real world example listed above. The current proposed language allowing removal for "construction purposes" is the same broad language that invites the exact same abuse to interpret the code and give away the City of Burbank trees to fit the desires of builders.

If the same practice continues more than half the trees on that side of Bel Aire could be destroyed (see image in top- down view of Bel Aire Drive in attachment" Circled BEL AIRE Missing Palm - future destroy.jpg") Every single one is in the same position on those lots as the neighbor who destroyed the iconic palm.

How many hundreds would that be City wide, and how could anyone say that leaving this explicit protection out could in any way be a "Green" policy, let alone protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods? Please take the responsible measures and actions to make sure these 2 changes are added to the ordinance before passage.

Thank you for your consideration,
Simon Hammel
Resident of Burbank for 14 years
hammel40 PNG
MOON MOON VALLEY NURSERY Sales Agreement
North Hollywoo
HURSERIES North Hollywood, CA 91605 CA-ROC 94136 Sales Agreement: 7587 Account #: 000110016224
Page: 1 of 1
Date: 6/26/2020
Time: 3:44:55 PM
Cashier: Salvo
Register #
Bill To: Simon Hammel Ship To: Simon Hammel
Burbank, ca 91501 Burbank ca 91501
Rep Description Price Extended
salvo Mexican Fan Palm (C Spec) RS Quantin $9,000.00 59,000.00 40 Tree
aalvo CRANE MINIMUM CHARGE $1.000.00 1,000.00
aalvo Get To The Job (Choose Date) $199.99 199.9
https://www.moonvalleynurseries.com/services/delivery-and- planting
Customer Gate Code:

Customerto draw simple map below of delivery address if difficult to find using Google Maps.

TAGREE TO ALL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Sub Total 510.199.99 ON THE BACK OF THE INVOICE Sales Tax $874.00
Total $11,073.99
Thank you for shopping Moon Valley Nursery
Change Due $0.00
https://mall.google.com/mail/w/o#search/mexican+/FMfcgxwJWXXVJtQZLpzvhFqsbFqJVLKj?projector=1&messagePartld=0.1 1/2 day of bury eidopment department city of burbank
memorandum
DATE: October 2, 2017
TO: Matthew Galbraith, Assistant Planner (ext. 5278)
FROM: Russell Freesland, Senior Plan Check Engineer, Building Division SUBJECT: Project No. 17-0006051 (Single-Family Special Development Permit) Located at 407 S Bel Aire
Based on the drawings submitted for this review, the following requirements apply to the project. Additional requirements will be included when complete drawings are submitted for Plan Check. The applicant and/or project designer is responsible for ensuring that all mandatory information required for permit issuance has been addressed on the plans:

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IS NOT A PLAN CHECK REVIEW. Plan check review requires submittal of complete construction documents and calculations. Questions concerning exiting, fire-resistance, and occupancy should be presented to the Building Division in writing accompanied by appropriate plans.

Please review the following comments.

1. All projects shall comply with Title 9, Chapter 1, of the Burbank Municipal Code, and the 2016 edition of the California Building Code, California Residential Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Green Building Standards and Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

2. Construction projects must comply with Best Management Practices for construction and stormwater runoff requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MS4 Permit.

3. The City's mandatory Construction & Demolition Debris Diversion Ordinance requires the recycling and diversion of at least 65% of construction and demolition debris. A refundable deposit and non-refundable administrative fee will be collected prior to permit issuance. The Ordinance applies to all demolitions and to new construction, additions, remodels, renovation, tenant improvement and alteration projects over 500 square feet in scope of work.

4. A stamped setback certification by a Licensed Surveyor will be required to certify the location of the new construction in relation to the setbacks prior to the first foundation inspection.

5. The California Division of Mines and Geology Active Fault Near-Source Zones Map for Burbank indicates the city is within 2 km - 5 km of the Verdugo and Hollywood Faults.

Structural design of construction projects must address the impact of the Near-Fault Zones.

6. Plans submitted for plan check must be stamped by State-licensed architect or engineer unless the project is one of the following listed below and complies with conventional light wood frame construction requirements in the CBC:
• Wood-framed, single-family dwellings not more than two stories in height; • Wood-framed, multi-family dwellings not more than two stories in height, and "imited to four dwelling units per parcel;
• Wood-framed, garages or accessory structures for single-family dwellings not more than two stories in height;
• Non-structural or non-seismic storefronts, interior alterations or additions.

7. A Building Permit may be issued to the Property Owner provided that the work is limited to:
•: A single-family dwelling of wood frame construction not more than two stories and a basement in height.
• Garages or other structures appurtenant to single-family dwellings of wood frame construction not more than two stories and basement in height. • • Nonstructural or non-seismic alterations or additions.

8. Approved hours of construction are:

Monday - Friday 7:00 am to 7:00 pm
Saturday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm
• No construction is permitted by contractors or subcontractors after hours, on Sunday or on City holidays without prior written request and approval from the Community Development Department.

9. New construction projects within the City of Burbank are subject to MWELO review.

New landscape areas for residential and non-residential projects between 500 and 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review will be required to complete, either a Performance or Prescriptive Compliance Method.

10. Plans and reports submitted for Plan Check Review may be submitted electronically.

For more information about the online submittal process, please contact Senior Plan Check Engineer Mario Osuna in Building Division at 818-238-5241.

11. Development Impact Fees are assessed by the City for construction of new commercial square footage as listed in the Burbank Fee Schedule and Title 10, Article 22, of the Burbank Municipal Code.

12. All conditions of approval are to be reproduced on the construction document drawings as part of the Approved Construction Set.

13. All Departments that have provide Conditions of Approval are to receive a set of drawings for review and have provided final approval stamp on drawings, prior to issuance of Building Permit.

14. Seven (7) sets of drawings shall be provided at the time of Plan Check Review. The following lists the necessary sheets per department:
a. Planning - Full set of Plans (C/L/A/S/M/P/E)
b. Building & Safety - Full set of Plans (C/L/A/S/M/P/E) c. Public Works - Partial set of Plans (C/L/A/M/P/E)
d. Parks & Recreation - Partial set of Plans (C/L)
e. Burbank Water & Power Department - Partial set of Plans (C/L/A/M/P/E) f. Burbank Police Department - Partial set of Plans (C/A) g. Burbank Fire Department -- Partial set of Plans (A/S) • C- Civil
• L - Landscape
• A - Architectural
* S - Structural
* M - Mechanical
• P- Plumbing
• E- Electrical

15. Floor Area Ratio calculation appears to be in error. a. Per my calculations the total Floor Area is approximately 2492 SF which give a Floor Area Ratio of 42% (2492/5900=42,2%)
Russell Freesland
Senior Plan Check Engineer
City of Burbank - Building Division
(P) 818-238-5293

PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
LOCATION: 407 SOUTH BEL AIRE DRIVE PROJECT: 17-6051
DESCRIPTION: SINGLE-FAMILY SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATE: 9/25/2017 Submit landscape and irrigation plans prepared by a licensed landscape architect.

Must comply with Municipal Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) requirements if over 500 1 square feet of landscape
Park Development Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits: $150 /bedroom. 2 X $150.00 =
No street trees required.

Street trees to remain:

Revise plans to include the following street trees: _
All street trees shall be a minimum of 24" box size.
5 Trees in grass shall be installed with Arbor Guards.

Add note on planting plan:

If the owner elects to install the street trees, they must contact the Forestry Supervisor, at (818) 238-5343, at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to installation. Failure to contact the City for inspection and installation may cause the removal and replacement at the owner's expense.

Tree wells required.
8 Provide irrigation bubbler to street trees.
9 Provide automatically controlled irrigation system to the parkway.

Remove existing street trees:

FEE: _
10 Contact Forestry Services at (818) 238-5343 for removal fee. 11 Must comply with Art in Public Places Ordinance if building costs are over $500,000 12 Additional Comments:
13 No Additional Comments
For additional information contact the Parks and Recreation Department at (818) 238-5300.

Approved:

Parks and Recreation Department
2017 SEP 27 A 10 PLARNING SIV!S!

CITY OF BURBANK

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM PLANNING BIVISION
2011 OCT 12 P 2:01
DATE: October 5, 2017.

TO: Matthew Galbraith, Assistant Planner (Ext. 5278)
FROM: Daniel J. Rynn, Chief Assistant Public Works Director-cly Engineer SUBJECT: Project No. 17-6051, Single-Family Special Development Permit 407 S Bel Aire Drive
Project Description: A request to demolish an existing 1,910 square foot one-story single-family residence and 400 square-foot detached two-car garage on an existing 5,900 square-foot lot, to the proposed 2,360 square-foot two-story single-family residence and 392 square-foot attached garage. The height of the proposed two-story residence will be 21' to top plate and 25'-5,75" to top of roof. The subject property is in the R-1, Single Family Residential zone.

ENGINEERING DIVISION
General Requirements
No permanent structure is permitted in any public right-of-way or any public utility easements/pole line easements [BMC 7-3-701.1, BMC 9-1-1-3203].

No building appurtenances for utility or fire service connections shall encroach or project into public right-of-way (ie. streets and alleys) Locations of these appurtenances shall be shown on the building site plan and the off-site improvement plans [BMC 7-3-701.1].

Applicant shall protect in place all survey monuments (City, County, State, Federal, and private). Pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Section 8771, when monuments exist that may be affected by the work, the monuments shall be located and referenced by or under the direction of a licensed land surveyor or licensed civil engineer legally authorized to practice land surveying, prior to construction, and a comer record or record of survey of the references shall be filed with the county surveyor. A permanent monument shall be reset or a witness monument or monuments set to perpetuate the location if any monument that Besia scrimina
could be affected, and a corner record or record of survey shall be filed with the county surveyor prior to the recording of a certificate of completion for the project.

Any work within the public right-of-way must be permitted and approved by the Public Works Department before construction can commence. All construction work in the public right-of-way must comply with Burbank Standard Plans and must be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. A Public Works EXCAVATION PERMIT is required. The excavation permit requires a deposit acceptable to the Public Works Director to guarantee timely construction of all off- site improvements. : Burbank Standard Plans can be accessed at; http://file.burbankca.gov/publicworks/OnlineCounter/main/index.htm The following must be completed prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:
• Submit on-site drainage plans to Public Works for review. On-site drainage shall • * not flow across the public parkway (sidewalk) or onto adjacent private property. it should be conveyed by underwalk drains to the gutter through the curb face •[BMC 7-1-117, BMC 73-102].

Any off site improvement plans (in the public night-of-way) must be approved by the Public Works Director.
• Plans should include easements, elevations, right-of-way/property lines, dedication, location of existing/proposed utilities and any encroachments.

The following must be completed prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy:

Removal of existing cactus within parkway fronting property. As described in the Public Works Department Parkway Policy, landscaping and other easily removed plantings will not require a permit but must be removed upon notification by the Püblic Works Director that such landscaping is hazardous to pedestrians BMC 7. 4-1071
Any portion of public sidewalk, curb or gutter that is broken, uneven or uplifted at the end of the project must be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

That reconstruction will be required whether the damage is pre-existing or is a result of the project. Contact the Public Works Inspection Office at (818) 238-3955 to have these areas inspected and identified after obtaining a Public Works Excavation Permit [BMC 7-3-501].

Additional Comments:

Accéss gates may not swing open into the public right-of-way. 2 If any utility cuts or construction related impacts are made on S. Bel Aire Drive adjacent to the property, applicant will have to restore the street fronting the property per City of Burbank paving requirements.

For additional information or questions, please contact Anthony Roman, Civil Engineering Associate, at (818) 238-3945.

Checked by: _ Anthony Roman Date: October 5, 2017

WATER RECLAMATION AND SEWER
Required Information Missing On Plans:

The location, depth, and dimensions of all sanitary sewer lines must be shown on the plans.

WASTEWATER REQUIREMENTS
No records were found indicating that the subject property has previously paid Sewer Facilities Charges (SCs). Under the current rate structure, pulling the Building Permit for the proposed development is subject to SCs estimated at $814. The charge is due prior to issuance of a Building Permit [BMC 8-1-802 and BMC 8-1-8061
SCs = Proposed Developments
= Single Family Residential [$814/ Residence * 1 Residence] = $814
Note: Every building or structure in which plumbing fixtures are installed which conveys sewage must be connected to the municipal wastewater system [BMC 8-1-104]:

No person shall connect to or tap an existing public sewer without obtaining a permit [BMC 8-1-301].
• Any existing connection to the sewer main line must be capped before a building demolition occurs.

A backwater valve is required on every private sewer lateral(s) connected to a private building(s), unless it can be shown that all fixtures contained therein have flood level rim elevations above the elevation of the next upstream maintenance hole cover of the public sewer serving the property, or a conditional. waiver is granted by the Director [BMC 8-1-313]. Please note that Public Works' Wastewater Division will not sign off on the Certificate of Occupancy until the owner/developer provides proof that the backwater valve(s) has been installed. 3 STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS
Per BMC 9-3-407, Best Management Practices shall apply to all construction projects and shall be required from the time of land clearing, demolition or commencement of construction until receipt of a certificate of occupancy.

Certain construction and re-construction activities on private property will need to comply with post-construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), which include Sections 8-1-1007 and 9-3-414.D of the BMC authorizing the City to require projects to comply with the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan provisions and the City's low impact development ordinance. For questions on these requirements, please contact the City's Building Division at (818) 238-5220.

For additional information or questions, please contact Kenneth Kozovich, Civil Engineer Assistant, at (818) 238 3932.

Checked by: - Kenneth Kozovich Date: October 4, 2017

TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
General Requirements:

Plans must show parkway width of 12 and a sidewalk width of 5' along Bel Aire Drive.

Show existing and proposed driveway aprons with dimensions. Proposed driveway apron shall require the removal of the palm tree fronting the property and must be stated on plans.

Proposed driveway apron shall align with the width of garage door [BMC 10-1- 1607]
No visual obstruction over 3' high and under 10' high shall exist within the 5' by 5' corner cut-off at the intersection of the street and driveway [BMC 10-1-1303 (C)].

For additional information or questions, please contact Jonathan Yee, Traffic Engineer, at (818) 238-3969.

Checked by: Jonathan Yee Date: September 28, 2017

FIELD SERVICES
General Comments:
4 K•ArminiDAv Review 20171SFSDP 17-6051 407 S Bel Air.docx There shall be a designated location on the property for all solid waste containers and/or bins. Containers are not to be visible from the street. • Solid Waste collection for this property occurs along Bel Aire Drive.

For additional information or questions, please contact Public Works Field Services at (818) 238-3800.

Checked by: John Molinar Date: September 25, 2017
Burbank Municipal Code Page 274/495
CHAPTER 1 ZONING
may provide one curb cut. Minor deviations from the foregoing standards may be authorized by the Public Works Director to accommodate the safe ingress and egress of vehicles. [Formerly numbered Section 31-182; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; Amended by Ord. No. 3676, eff. 8/16/05; 2473.] 10-1-1603: DRIVEWAY WIDTH:

Every driveway shall be at least 10 feet wide, and a maximum as approved by the Director. [Formerly numbered Section 31-183; Amended by Ord. No. 3267, eff. 9/28/91; 3200, 3181, 3058.]
10-1-1604: DRIVEWAY SLOPES:

The slope of a driveway or driveway ramp shall not exceed a grade of 20 percent. A grade transition shall be provided at each end of a driveway or driveway ramp in accordance with standards prescribed by the Public Works Director. [Formerly numbered Section 31-184; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2370.] 10-1-1605: PROTECTIVE BARRIER IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONES:

Where a vehicular access is provided to a street in a nonresidential zone, a barrier consisting of a three (3) foot high masonry wall, or such other protective barrier as may be approved by the Director, shall be constructed along the remaining street frontage of the lot to prevent unchanneled motor vehicle ingress or egress to the property. In commercial zones, the protective barrier shall also have the same aesthetic screening effect as a block wall, as approved by the Director. [Formerly numbered Section 31-185; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87; 2930, 2598, 2183.] 10-1-1606: TURN AROUND AREAS:

A. IN ALL ZONES.

A 24 foot turning radius shall be provided for access to driveways and right-angle parking stalls. [Formerly numbered Section 31-186; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87.]
10-1-1607: APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR:

All vehicular accessways to the street must be approved by the Public Works Director. [Formerly numbered Section 31-187; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87.J
10-1-1608: DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS:

1. STACKING DISTANCE. All new drive-through restaurants shall have a drive-up or drive-through bay for in-car service with an on-site vehicular waiting lane. The on-site vehicular waiting lane shall be a minimum length of 160 feet as measured along the centerline from the point of entry or the beginning of a drive-through lane, to the center of the farthest service window area (the "stacking distance").

2. SEPARATE WAITING LANE FOR NEW DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANTS.

The drive-through lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation routes and aisles necessary for ingress to or egress from the property or access to any off-street parking spaces.

The Burbank Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 14-3,850, effective April 18, 2014.

Prescott, Patrick ‹[email protected]»
Wed, Jun 17, 2020, 12:49 PM
to K
ob »
Ms. Ogden,
The widening of the driveway necessitated the removal of the tree. It is a condition of approval for the home. In other words, the removal of the tree was required.

What you see here is an example of how sometimes competing values collide. Our codes and policies reflect the City's values or its values at some point in time. The City zoning code requires a two-car garage for new single-family homes. The code also requires that the garage be a certain width and the code also requires that the driveway be the width of the garage. Then we come to the driveway apron in the right of way. The driveway apron is required to be the same width as the driveway. The widening of the driveway necessitated the removal of the palm tree. Right here is where the values have collided. I think the removal of the tree offers us an opportunity to discuss these competing values.

It sounds like it is time to have that conversation and last night the City Council requested a report on this matter from City staff and we hope to bring something back soon.

Patrick
Patrick Prescott, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Burbank
(818) 238-5176
Working together for a safe, beautiful, and thriving community.

Note:

The important facts that:

A. multiple apron designs exist and
that some had smaller wings or curbed designs not mentioned.

ANY could be compelled, thus destruction would NOTE be required in those cases, as suggested here by the Director.

B. Whatever value the tree had to the public interest is not only not detailed here, it is clearly of lesser value than the desire for the concrete driveway widening above the City Tree.

Bel Aire Drive Palm Tree removed for new Concrete Wide Driveway Aire Dr_.

Google
Potential removal with identical parkway apron standards Meredith, Alyssa
From:

Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:38 PM
To: City Council DL; Mullins, Zizette; Schultz, Nick; Anthony, Konstantine; Takahashi, Tamala Subject: Re: Agenda Item K-6 -amend Title 7 Council Meeting Feb-14-2023 Attachments: Updated Letter to CC for Title 7 Ammend 2-14-2023.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good Afternoon,
It was brought to my attention that a grammatical error exists in my correspondence: Please include this correction - the word NOT is added to the paragraph below and affects the meaning:

Please add this to the record or if it is more convenient I have attached the fully corrected version in the file: "Updated Letter to CC for Title 7 Ammend 2-14-2023.pdf" It is acceptable to me to substitute a printed copy of this file in substitution of the body of my original email, please include all attachments sent with the first email for the correspondence.
"Now please note the email (attached file: "PRESCOTT Values Email SLIDE2-redacted" from the Community Development Director to a concerned resident sent near the time of the incident. What is important to note is a. The Director did not disclose the City allows several kinds of and designs for different styles of aprons, including a high curb design that has very shallow wings. Only a few inches would have saved the tree and that if this were compelled, the removal would NOT be required as the director implies. "
The point is, given a different apron design - the tree may have been saved.

Best regards
Simon Hammel.
1 Mayor Anthony and Honorable Council Members,
Please include this corrected correspondence document in substitution to the body of my prior email, and include all other attachments originally attached in the official correspondence for the public hearing regarding Title 7 and Tree Ordinance (Agenda Item k6).

2. The City shall replace, in a timely fashion any illegally removed tree, in the same place where the tree was removed and levy fines to facilitate such replacement at no additional cost to the general public. The Penalty for removing a Tree that is the Property of the City of Burbank shall be a fine assed to be not less than all replacement and repair costs including:
a. Similar species or viable alternative determined by the Forestry department of the closest mature sized tree to allow the greatest probability of long term survival.
b. All materials and labor associated with administration, demolition, xcavation, procurement, planting and irrigation to provide a replacement tre nat meets all current code requirements. Such costs may also include repairs t utility service when such service is disrupted, damaged or incurs a cost associated with remediating the damaged tree.
c. Above terms shall be included in contractual conditions of approval for building application signatories.

The reasons for the requests above are related to the incident that inspired the City Council at the time to request this update to the tree ordinances.

Here is the BACKGROUND of the incident:

An appeal was brought against the property and was unanimously denied by the Planning Board.

However, during the appeal the City agreed to address a number of major code violations and compel the alteration of the project to comply with the code in any area where it remained non-compliant.

The appellant chose not to exercise their right to additional Council appeal in the hopes of a good-faith commitment by the City and builder. The multiple rounds of changes were so substantive as to delay beginning construction an additional nine months after the appeal.

A summary of changes to the project, including showing a four foot reduction in overall height, required not to exceed the maximum top-of-plate, can be provided upon request. Unfortunately, the new driveway design, for which there was both possibility and opportunity to modify, was not altered by the mere few inches needed to save the 70 year old City of Burbank property tree. Additionally, internal City of Burbank documents, obtained by public record requests seem to indicate that policy at the time was not followed and may have offered multiple opportunities to preserve the tree.

In order to prevent these issues from happening again and in support of the two changes I proposed to the new Tree Ordinance - please consider the following:

How would any reasonable voter not consider that the people who tore down the generations old iconic Burbank palm tree did not receive a 15 thousand dollar gift from the taxpayers for their private project? Secondly, and perhaps more importantly is HOW the applicants received permission to destroy the tree and were not challenged or compelled to alter their design in a similar way they were made to comply with any other issue specifically raised at the appeal. The tree removal was not specifically challenged during the appeal.

Please note PAGE 4 of the attached document "CityBurbank CDD-ParkREC apprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf".

The red markings are provided on this copy of the original unaltered document that can be furnished from the public records request.

Now take note of PAGE 4 of the document "CityBurbank PUBWORKPreApprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf", again we have retained the original and the red-line is provided for reference. Note the following language:
"Show existing and proposed driveway aprons with dimensions. Proposed driveway apron shall require the removal of the palm tree fronting the property and must be stated on plans".... "Proposed driveway apron shall align with the width of the garage door [ BMC 10-1-16087].

Note that the City employee uses language that is very similar to the wording and phrasing used in real City of Burbank codes. To a casual reader, one might be fooled into thinking these requirements are a design guideline, compelled by code. The author also sights a real code number, yet an examination of that code shows ( see highlight on attachment BMC as of 2018-at hearing 10-1-1607 Vehicle Access.pdf)
The true language of the real code reads as follows:
10-1-1607: APPROVAL BY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR: All vehicular accessways to the street must be approved by the Public Works Director. [Formerly numbered Section 31-187; Renumbered by Ord. No. 3058, eff. 2/21/87.]
This code not only doesn't EXPLICITLY allow the removal of trees, it doesn't even hint at it, nor indicate that it supersedes the authority of the Parks & Rec Director or standing City policy to approve removal through Forestry, and Parks & Rec.

In fact, both documents were available and their language included for the Community Development Director during initial approval prior to, during, and after appeal. How could the Director not catch the disparity, and require alteration of the driveway apron to one of at least three possible alternatives to preserve the City of Burbank Public property is obligated to protect over private interests? Now please note the email (attached file: "PRESCOTT Values Email SLIDE2-redacted" from the Community Development Director to a concerned resident sent near the time of the incident. What is important to note is a. The Director did not disclose the City allows several kinds of and designs for different styles of aprons, including a high curb design that has very shallow wings. Only a few inches would have saved the tree and that if this were compelled, the removal may not be required as the director implies.

Even more disturbing is that he suggests there are competing values and that by extrapolation we are led to believe there is some value or interest that places the creation of a super wide concrete driveway apron with extended wings above the preservation of City of Burbank Trees that would require coordination of circumventing the Forestry department and employing false code language in order to ignore the Cities climate policies and pave over 70 years of tradition,It remains a mystery as to what that value might be.

If the same practice continues more than half the trees on that side of Bel Aire could be destroyed (see image in top-down view of Bel Aire Drive in attachment" Circled BEL AIRE Missing Palm - future destroy.jpg") Every single one is in the same position on those lots as the neighbor who destroyed the iconic palm.

How many hundreds would that be City wide, and how could anyone say that leaving this explicit protection out could in any way be a "Green" policy, let alone protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods?
Please take the responsible measures and actions to make sure these 2 changes are added to the ordinance before passage.

Thank you for your consideration,
Simon Hammel
Resident of Burbank for 14 years
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Angela Wiegand 1
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:40 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Re: Agenda item K6 title 7 protect the trees please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mayor Anthony and Council Members,
Re: Agenda Item K6, title 7 to protect the trees.....

Please amend the ordinance to include the suggestions submitted by resident Simon Hammel.

Thank you,
Angela Wiegand
Meredith, Alyssa
From: ROY WIEGAND ‹
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:50 PM
To: City Council DL
Subject: Fwd: Agenda item K6 title 7 protect the trees please CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. >
> Dear Mayor Anthony and Council Members,
> Rease anda deme or diaze prote the suggestions submitted by resident Simon Hammel. > Thank you,
> Roy Wiegand
Meredith, Alyssa
From: Prescott, Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 1:53 PM
To: Anthony, Konstantine
CC: Hess, Justin; Wilke, Judie
Subject: RE: Agenda Item K-6 -amend Title 7 Council Meeting Feb-14-2023 We are already mostly proposing what he is asking. He's just using different language. Amanda will be able to explain tonight.

Patrick
From: Anthony, Konstantine < [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 12:57 PM
To: Prescott, Patrick <[email protected]>
Cc: Hess, Justin <[email protected]>; Wilke, Judie <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item K-6 -amend Title 7 Council Meeting Feb-14-2023 Patrick,
Simon Hammel is asking for two changes in language to the ordinance.

Are these both feasible?
-Konstantine
From: Simon H
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:25:35 AM
To: City Council DL <[email protected]>; Mullins, Zizette <[email protected]>; Schultz, Nick <[email protected]>; Anthony, Konstantine < [email protected]>; Takahashi, Tamala <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item K-6 -amend Title 7 Council Meeting Feb-14-2023 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

In the interest of brevity, I list the two changes requested in the beginning and follow with an explanation of the reasoning - - for those who have an interest or time to read. Given the large public outcry about the iconic Bel Aire 1 Palm, 1 am certain the public will be looking to know that the Council considered these options before the next tree comes down.

Please inquire whether language can be added to our code and design guidelines to require driveway aprons be adapted to protect and preserve City parkway trees with specific explicit language along the lines of:

Please inquire if this would require a change to the residential building code, in addition to title 7 in the current version of the ordinance.

2. The City shall replace, in a timely fashion any illegally removed tree, in the same place where the tree was removed and levy fines to facilitate such replacement at no additional cost to the general public. The Penalty for removing a Tree that is the Property of the City of Burbank shall be a fine assed to be not less than all replacement and repair costs including:
a. Similar species or viable alternative determined by the Forestry department of the closest mature sized tree to allow the greatest probability of long term survival. b. All materials and labor associated with administration, demolition, excavation, procurement, planting and irrigation to provide a replacement tree that meets all current code requirements. Such costs may also include repairs to utility service when such service is disrupted, damaged or incurs a cost associated with remediating the damaged tree. c. Above terms shall be included in contractual conditions of approval for building application signatories.

The reasons for the requests above are related to the incident that inspired the City Council at the time to request this update to the tree ordinances.

Here is the BACKGROUND of the incident:

An appeal was brought against the property and was unanimously denied by the Planning Board. However, during the appeal the City agreed to address a number of major code violations and compel the alteration of the project to comply with the code in any area where it remained non-compliant. The appellant chose not to exercise their right to additional Council appeal in the hopes of a good-faith commitment by the City and builder. The multiple rounds of changes were so substantive as to delay beginning construction an additional nine months after the appeal.

A summary of changes to the project, including showing a four foot reduction in overall height, required not to exceed the maximum top-of-plate, can be provided upon request. Unfortunately, the new driveway design, for which there 2 was both possibility and opportunity to modify, was not altered by the mere few inches needed to save the 70 year old City of Burbank property tree. Additionally, internal City of Burbank documents, obtained by public record requests seem to indicate that policy at the time was not followed and may have offered multiple opportunities to preserve the tree.

In order to prevent these issues from happening again and in support of the two changes I proposed to the new Tree Ordinance - please consider the following:

Please note PAGE 4 of the attached document "CityBurbank CDD-ParkREC apprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf".. The red markings are provided on this copy of the original unaltered document that can be furnished from the public records request.

Now take note of PAGE 4 of the document "CityBurbank PUBWORKPreApprv 407 S Bel Aire.pdf", again we have retained the original and the red-line is provided for reference. Note the following language:
"Show existing and proposed driveway aprons with dimensions. Proposed driveway apron shall require the removal of the palm tree fronting the property and must be stated on plans"…. " Proposed driveway apron shall align with the width of the garage door [ BMC 10-1-16087 ].

Even more disturbing is that he suggests there are competing values and that by extrapolation we are led to believe there is some value or interest that places the creation of a super wide concrete driveway apron with extended wings above the preservation of City of Burbank Trees that would require coordination of circumventing the Forestry department and employing false code language in order to ignore the Cities climate policies and pave over 70 years of tradition,. It remains a mystery as to what that value might be.

Thank you for your consideration,
Simon Hammel
Resident of Burbank for 14 years
4

Burbank City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Burbank City Council
February 14, 2023