The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2014.02.06AGENDA BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION February 6, 2014 (k 6:30 PM BURLINGAME RECREATION CENTER 850 BURLINGAME AVE — Conference Room I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. FROM THE FLOOR Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. V. OLD BUSINESS 1) 2014 Business Landscape Award Timeline 2) Commission Procedures — Discussion after Proofing 3) Adopt -A -Tree Program VI. NEW BUSINESS 1) Appeal at 1321 Paloma Ave 2) Discussion of Commissions Emphasis 3) Floribunda/El Camino Eucalyptus Removal — Response to Commission Letter? 4) Arbor Day VII. REPORTS 1) Staff 2) Chairperson 3) Commissioners VIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting_ March 6, 2014 NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at lease 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available forpublic inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION February 6, 2014 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chairperson Hinckle. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hinckle, Commissioners Hunt, Dittman, McQuaide and Kirchner. Staff: Park & Rec Director Glomstad, Parks Supervisor/Arborist Disco and Parks Secretary Borba. MINUTES - Minutes of the December 5, 2013 meeting were approved. CORRESPONDENCE Arbor Day is Friday, March 7, 2014 at 10:30am at Bayside Fields Community Garden. PUBLIC COMMENT None OLD BUSINESS 1. 2014 Business Landscape Award Timeline Commissioner Kirchner updated the timeline. The deadline for Commissioner's and public nominations is May 1, 2014. Commissioners McQuaide and Hunt are the chairs this year. The nomination form is posted in the Recreation Brochure, Chamber of Commerce newsletter and Burlingame a -news. 2. Commission Procedures Commission had no more comments or questions about the process. 3. Adopt -A -Tree Program Director Glomstad updated the Commission on the Adopt -A -Tree program. The City along with the CEC (Citizens Environmental Council) is planning on rolling out the Adopt -A -Tree program at Arbor Day on March 7t1i. Volunteers can adopt a newly planted tree and water it with 5 gallons of water once a week for 2 years. Commissioner Hunt moved to go forward with the Adopt -A -Tree Program as outline by Director Glomstad. Commissioner McQuaide seconded the motion. All were in favor; none opposed, motion passed 5-0. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appeal at 1321 Paloma Avenue, Removal of Five Redwoods Denied Arborist Disco read the staff report. The Commissioners inquired about the age of the trees and root pruning possibilities. Public Comment — None Appellant Patrick Gilson was ill and sent his Father Bob Gilson to represent him. Mr. Gilson presented the Commissioners with a letter from the neighbor at 1325 Paloma Ave. Mr. Gilson stated that the Redwoods were planted 11 years ago by the previous owner. The Appellant purchased the house 6 months ago and in the last 4 weeks the trees have caused the door not to be able to open. He also stated that the left side tree is impeding on the driveway and the Redwoods are only 5ft away from the city sewer easement. The trees are cracking the foundation of the house on the left side and the resident on the right is the one who wrote the letter. The Appellant is not opposed to planting new trees, but these Redwoods are causing a lot of damage. Commissioner McQuaide asked if things can change within the time Mr. Gilson had purchased the property and now and wouldn't there be some indication that there was a problem prior to purchasing the property? Commissioner Kirchner noted that Mr. Gilson adored the ten trees in an email to Arborist Disco and now he wants them all removed. He asked if there was a property inspection before he purchased the property. Arborist Disco reported that initially Mr. Gilson was going to do a remodel but now he is doing a tear down of the existing house structure. Commissioner Hinckle suggested that we postpone the appeal until next month when the appellant Patrick Gilson could attend and answer all the questions the Commissioners have. Commissioner Dittman felt that the Appellant's father represented him fairly well and she had 1 enough information to make a decision. Commissioner Dittman suggested the new construction can be built around the trees. Commissioner Kirchner suggested that they look at each tree individually. Commissioner McQuaide moved to deny the removal Redwood tree #2, 3, and 4 on the property because they are in good health and there is no impact on existing garage or future structures. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Dittman and all were in favor; none opposed, motion passed (5-0). Commissioner Kirchner moved to deny the removal of Redwood #7 since the tree is still healthy and does not meet the requirements for the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance for removal. Commissioner McQuaide seconded the motion and all were in favor; none opposed, motion passed (5-0). Commissioner Dittman moved to deny the removal of Redwood #9 as any potential damage to the neighbor's driveway has already been mitigated and the tree is in good health. Commissioner McQuaide seconded the motion and all were in favor; none opposed, motion passed (5-0). 2. Discussion of Commission's Emphasis Commissioner McQuaide voiced her concern regarding the direction that the Beautification Commission was taking. She stated that in the past there were more appeals, they worked on the view policy and worked with Caltrans regarding Easton Drive. Now there are not as many appeals but they are more involved with the Business Landscape award. Looking into adding Public Art dilutes the emphasis which should be on trees. The Commission should represent the community for the preservation of the trees to protect the value for the Homeowner. 3. Floribunda/El Camino Real Potential Eucalyptus Removal Chair Hinckle read the response to the letter that was sent to Caltrans by the Beautification Commission. 4. Arbor Day Arbor Day invitations were sent out to the Council, Beautification and Park & Recreation Commissions, CalFire, Burlingame Schools and City staff. The Burlingame School District has an in service day and will not be able to participate in the Arbor Day Celebration this year. REPORTS 1. Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Disco City contracted Bay Area Tree Specialists has completed trimming the Eucalyptus trees on Burlingame Avenue and will now move to the Eucalyptus Skyline Boulevard. The Tree Crew has completed the January planting of 74 new trees. The Fuel Reduction Program is completed for the year with CalFire crews removing weeds and brush in Mills Canyon and Sanchez Creek. 2. Commissioner Hinckle None 3. Commissioner Kirchner Made an observation that there are 3 open seats on the Planning Commission 4. Commissioner McQuaide None 5. Commissioner Hunt None 6. Commissioner Dittman Comment on an article stating the Eucalyptus trees are an invasive species belonging here as part of our landscape. The next Beautification Commission meeting is March 6, 2014. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:18pm. Respectfully submitted, gittac Xamt6a Gina Borba Recording Secretary BURL STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: February 6, 2014 From: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist Subject Appeal to the Removal of 5 Redwood Trees at 1321 Paloma Ave. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends one of three options to the Commission. 1. Deny the appeal since the trees are healthy and do not meet the requirements in the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. 2. Uphold the appeal based on the proximity and location of trees to existing structures, and future cost to homeowner. 3. Uphold the appeal and permit removal of one or more trees on an individual bases. BACKGROUND On August 1, 2013, a permit was submitted for the removal of one Redwood tree at 1321 Paloma. This permit was approved based on location, the confined space of the planting area and the existence of 11 other trees remaining on the property. (Exhibit A) On December 3, 2013, the property owner at 1321 Paloma submitted another Protected Tree Removal Permit (Exhibit B) for the removal of 9 redwood trees in the front and rear of his property. The property was originally forested with 10 protected redwoods ranging from 35-50ft. An independent arborist report (Exhibit C) was performed on December 1, 2013 and is an accurate account of the health and structure of each tree. The City Arborist approved the removal of four redwoods (trees #1,5,6,8) based on location and structure and denied the removal of the remaining five redwoods. The property owner was notified of this decision in a letter dated December 16, 2013. (Exhibit D). On December 30, the property owner appealed the denial of the five trees ( trees #2,3,4,7 & 9) . The independent arborist report accurately notes that the trees were planted in a poor location and will increase in size. Based on the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Exhibit E), four of the redwoods qualified for removal. The five remaining trees on appeal are in good health and structure but should be subject to discussion based on the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance Section 11.60.060: (d)(1) ... the condition of the trees to existing/proposed structures, yards and driveways; (d)(5) ... the number of trees the particular parcel can support, (d)(7)... the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. The Commission should address these sections for each tree in their discussion and include the results of their findings in their motion. EXHIBITS A. August 2013 Private Tree Removal Permit packet B. December 2013 Private Tree Removal Permit C. Kielty Arborist Report D. City's Approval/Denial letter E. Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance F. Correspondence from 1317 Paloma G. Landscape map H. Pictures of trees 2 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL EXHIBITA PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS & RECREATIONDEPA.RTIKENT 850BIT.RLINGAMEAVENUE-BURLINGAME, CA -940I0 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner'of the property at: ADDRESS:-_ 132,1 PAL O MA AVIC (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crown or tree(s): roofs of the following protected SPECIES RC'iL✓061 CIRCUMFERENCE bO_ LOCATION ON PROPERTY ►�"cT. ,Y�� WORK TO BE PERFORMED. e owa 1 REASON WORK IS NECESSARY Cr/iec%Yi7� = . yar - Di51vl ' (-A �e (Please use back ofform for additional commens..) NOTE: APHOTOGRAPIiOFTIMTREES OWNBR(pri) Pa-/yi•ckMUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITHA G so n !Z&29 CHECK TO- CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDRESS 1321 PA 16 1J 8VE Attach any supporting documentation you may have j.s (Example: Reporl from an lndependentArborisi). PHONE �): `t Q -2 �Q �: /. �:arg �/O 79 / - - - - - - — ---------- PEIiMIT _.._---- This permif allows the applicant to remove or prune the abovelisted trees) in accordanoe with.tlieprovisions of the Urban Reforestationand eceProtecc Ordinance(MunicipalCodeChaptei11.06). Bysigaiugthispetmit the a plicantaclmowledges rece11 of a cpy of Chapter 11.06; and.agrees to comply -With its Provisions and all Conditions listed below, and that all appeals havoc expired:oi been.resolved. -*OWNER_ //ci'7�`�A CITYARBORIST�jli . PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOp, CONAITIONS::.: 2.4 -'Inch box size lantlscapearee(s) (no fM t.or'nut trees) ivill be required.rind maybe Planted-rzitywlzere ozz.tlze properly: If conditions are not in t withijz the adbited;t me as spec f e¢ is Sectiofz ZL06:080, payment of$400 for each tree nzto the tree replacementfund will be required. ?<4x1_K NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) completed.. BUILDINGPAOJEcT.•permit ineffectiveuntilafter Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE Z[ (: PERMIT EXPIRES This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit nuzst be available at thejob site at all tiitzes when ,U�>>� ;� x�;� _.__ _ 1 EXHIBITA City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLS phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216j' August 7, 2013 Patrick Gilson 1321 Paloma Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE REDWOOD TREE @ 1321 PALOMA AVENUE - BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned tree on the property at the above address, and have made the following determination: 1) The medium size Redwood tree is.growing in a small confihed.area and will eventually becometoo large for the existing space. 2) The property has eleven other Redwoods growing throughout the landscape. 3) The property is well forested; therefore no replacement will be required. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the tree. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If you agree )pith tree conditions, please sign the enclosed perndt and return in the self addressed envelope BEFORE August 21, 2013. Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our office by August 21, 2013 as provided in Section IL06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burrlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued on August 21, 2013 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, �\ Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Property Owner 1316 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 0 Property Owner 1317 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1320 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 1325 Paloma Ave 1316 Capuchin Ave 1320 Capuchin Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1324 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1324 Capuchin Ave Burlingame, CA94010 EXHIBITA PARKS -Harvey, Karlene From: Patrick Gilson [patrickgilson@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2013 8:34 AM To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene; PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject: 1321 Paloma Ave - Tree Removal Attachments: photo 1.JPG; ATT3424139.txt; photo 2.JPG; ATT3424140.txt ,D El 12 U photo 1JPG (4 MB) ATT3424139.txt photo 2.JPG (3 MB) AT13424140.bct (70 B) (84 B) Good morning, My Name is Patrick Gilson and I am the owner at 1321 Paloma Ave. These two photos show the tree that I would like to remove. Please keep in mind that I have 11 other Mature redwood trees on my property that I adore. Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions. Regards, Patrick Gilson 650-440-2204 1 `y^ 1 EXHIBIT B -01 2r V I' I �-� / 'l /il0/ i•/1 _ /.Y/iFiieJ.ii�c (�iYJ.P AJ hae. ✓i lie 4s-- — Z� L"? ; �ce I a�L Vtil owt " Ill �� ::� 12-4-i- Ii EXHIBIT C Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 December 1, 2013 Mr. Patrick Gilson 1731 Adrian Road 413 Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1321 Paloma, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Gilson, As requested on Wednesday, November 27, 2013, I visited the above site for the purpose of inspecting and commenting on the trees. You and your neighbors are concerned about the Property damage the trees are causing and your concern as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was not climbed for this inspection. The trees r question was located nc a "Not- to -Scale" map provided by me. The tree was then measured for diameter at 48 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. EXHIBIT C 1321 Paloma/12/1/13 Survey: (2) Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments 1 Redwood 26.5 (Sequoia sempervirens) 50 50/25 Fair vigor, poor form, large swelling on lower trunk. Large surface roots, six Feet from neighbor's garage. 2 Redwood 25.1 (Sequoia sempervirens) 65 50/30 Good vigor, fair form, recently thinned. 3 Redwood 23.8 (Sequoia sempervirens) 60 50/30 Good vigor, fair form, recently thinned. 4 Redwood 21.1 (Sequoia sempervirens) 50 45/25 Good vigor, poor form, trunk bends to the southeast. 5 Redwood 34.1 (Sequoia sempervirens) 50 45/40 Good vigor, poor form, trunk pillows over drive. Roots damaging drive and neighbors Retaining wall. 6 Redwood 19.8 (Sequoia sempervirens) 45 35/25 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed by #7, tgRped roots damaging neighbor's Walkway. 7 Redwood 31.5 (Sequoia sempervirens) 55 55135 Fair vigor, fair form, poor location, roots damaging neighbor's ro e P P rh'• 8 Redwood 23.5 (Sequoia sempervirens) 55 50/30 Fair vigor, fair form, poor location, at comer of retaining wall. 9 Redwood 29.9 (Sequoia sempervirens) 60 50/35 Fair vigor, fair form, poor location, 3 feet from neighbor's retaining wall. Neighbors Drive recently replaced. Summary: The trees on site are all redwoods. The trees are poorly located, planted years ago by a miss - guided homeowner. The trees are still quite small for the species and are expected to grow 2-3 times the present size. Many of the trees have already damaged properties on two sides. As the poorly located trees increase in size damages will dramatically increase. Trees 41, #5, #6, #7 and #9 should be removed with the remaining trees being removed as the begin damaging neighbors properties. EXHIBIT C 1321 Paloma/12/1/13 (3) Redwood trees can be great grown in nature or planted where there root zones have room to expand. Planted in a small confined space the plantings can be disastrous. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural Principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevm R. Kielty Certified Arborist Np. WE-c476A I m ) j | § \. FALOMA AVENUE __ $ \7 ti-H. }; | N 7� !fir $q# | , % ! 192 .! , ... ) H .� | ! f & � EXHIBIT D City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 0 December 16, 2013 Patrick Gilson 1321 Paloma Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST—BURLINGAME TO REMOVE NBVE REDWOOD TREES rQ 1321 PAL OMA AVENUE After inspection of the Redwood trees at the property at 1321 Paloma Avenue, the following conclusions were made regarding removal. 1) Redwood #1 — The tree is growing close to the existing structure, has large surface roots and abnormal swelling at the base. — Permit Approved 2) Redwood 42, 3, 4 — All these trees are in good health with no structural issues. - Permit Denied 3) Redwood #5 — The tree is in good health but is impeding full access to resident's garage. — Permit Approved 4) Redwood #6 — The tree was topped at one time and has poor structure. — Permit Approved 5) Redwood #7 — The tree is in good health and has good structure. It is damaging the neighbors 6" retaining wall but there is no damage to the driveway at this time and is not impeding access to the garage. —Permit Denied 6) Redwood #8 — The tree is in good health but is located next to the existing retaining wall and sidewalk. — Permit Approved 7) Redwood #9 — The tree has good structure and is in good health. There are no signs of damage to the existing hardscape. — Permit Denied 8) The Property is well forested, replacement with one 24-inch box size landscape trees (no fruit or nut tree) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of trees #1, 5, 6 & 8 and deny removal of trees #2, 3, 4, 7 & 9. The trees are subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If you agree Wth the conditions, please sign the enclosed perarit and return in the self-addressed envelope BEFORE December 30, 2013. Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our office by December 30, 2013 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Bur•linganre Municipal Code Chapter 11.0G). The permit will be issued on and Tree P 2013 n no appeal has been received by that date.if Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb EXHIBIT D CC: Properly Owner l3t2. Capuchin Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1328 Capuchino Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1317 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1328 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1316 Capuchino Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1311 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1320 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1329 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1320 Capuchin Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1312 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1324 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1324 Capuchino Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1316 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1325 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 EXHIBIT E 11.06.010 Chapter 11.06 URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE PROTECTION Sections: 11.06.010 Purpose and intent. 11.06.020 Definitions. 11.06.030 Nomination and listing of protected trees. 11.06.040 Emergencies. 11.06.050 Prohibitions and protections. 11.06.060 Notices and permits required for removal or work significantly affecting protected trees. 11.06.070 Decision by director. 11.06.080 Appeal. 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation. 11.06.100 Penalty. 11.06.010 Purpose and intent. The city of Burlingame is endowed and forested with a variety of healthy and valuable trees which must be pro- tected and preserved. The preservation of these trees is essential to the health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the city because these trees preserve the scenic beauty of the city, maintain ecological balance, prevent erosion of top soil, counteract air pollution and oxygenate the air, absorb noise, maintain climatic and microclimstic balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. For these same reasons, the requirement of at least one tree, exclusive of city -owned trees, on every residential lot in the city should be part of the permit process for any con- struction or remodeling. It is the intent of this chapter to establish conditions and regulations for the removal and replacement of existing trees and the installation of new trees in new construction and development consistent with these purposes and the reasonable economic enjoyment ofprivate property. (Ord. 1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) A.06.020 Definitions. Terms used in this chapter shall be defined as follows: (a) "Commission" means the Beautification Commis- sion of the city of Burlingame. (b) "Department" means the parks and recreation department of the city of Burlingame. (c) "Development or redevelopment"meansany work upon any property in the city of Burlingame which re- quires a subdivision, variance, use permit, building permit orotherapproval orwhich involves excavation, landscap- ing, or construction in the vicinity of a protected tree. (d) "Director"ineans the director of parks and recrea- tion of the city of Burlingame. (e) "Landscape tree" means a generally recognized ornamental tree and shall exclude fruit, citrus, or nut - bearing trees. (f) "Protected tree" means: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of impor- tance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has deter- mined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. (9) "Pruning" means the removal of more than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more than one third of the root system. Pruning done without a permit or which does not conform to the provisions of a permit shall be deemed.a removal (h) "Removal" means cutting to the ground, extrac- tion, killing by spraying, girdling, or any other means. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 1, (1993); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.030 Nomination and listing of protected trees. Nomination for protected tree status under Section 11.06.020(f)(2) may be made by any citizen. The commis- sion shall review such nominations and present its recom- mendations to the city council for designation. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the departmentand shall be available for distribution to interested citizens. The city council may remove a designated treefrom the list upon its own motion or upon request. Requests for such action may originate in the same manner as nomina- tions for protected tree status. (Ord. 1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.040 Emergencies. In the event that an emergency condition arises whereby immediate action is necessary because ofdisease, or danger to life or property, a protected tree may be re- moved or altered by order of the director or, if the director is unavailable, a responsible member of the police, fire, parks and recreation, or public works department. In such event, a report shall be made to the commission describing the conditions and necessity of such an order. (Ord. 1057 § (Burlingame Supp. No. 2, 9-06) 236 EXHIBIT E I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598. § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.050 Prohibitions and protections. (a) No protected tree shall be removed from any par- cel without a permit except as provided in Section 11.06.040. (b) The following conditions shall be observed during construction or development of property: (1) Protected trees are to be protected by a fence which is to be maintained at all times; (2) Protected trees that have been damaged or de- stroyed by construction shall be replaced or the city shall be reimbursed, as.provided in Section 11.06.090; (3) Chemicals or other construction materials shall not be stored within the drip line of protected trees; (4) Drains shall be provided as required by the direc- tor whenever soil fill is placed around protected trees; and (5) Signs, wires or similar devices shall not be at- tached to protected trees. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.060 Notices'and permits required for removal or work significantly affecting protected trees. (a) Removal or Pruning. Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected trees on public orprivate prop- erty shall obtain a permit to remove or prune a protected tree. The.application shall be on a form famished by the department and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the tree(s) to be removed or pruned by type(s) and the reason for removal or pruning of each. The application shall also include a photograph with correct botanical identification of the subject tree or tree(s). An authorized representative of the department shall make an inspection of the tree(s) and shall file a written report and his or her recommendations to the director. (b) Educational Conference before Work Commences. After receipt of an application, the director may require an educational conference to inform the owner of potential alternatives to the proposed removal or pruning. (c) Removal or Pruning of Protected Trees on Unde- veloped or Redeveloped Property. When an application for development or redevelopment of a property containing one or more protected trees is filed in any office or de- partment of the city, the person making such an applica- tion shall file a site plan showing the location of buildings or structures or ofproposed site disturbances, and the loca- tion of all trees. The director shall determine if all pro- tected trees are shown. An anthm. ed'representative of the department shall make an inspection and shdlf file a report of his or her findings and recommendations to the director. 237 11.06.050 Subject to the replacement provisions of Section 11.0E-090, the director shall approve the removal of pro- tected trees within the footprint of approved construction in the R-1 zone, which construction does not require a variance, conditional use permit, or special permit under Title 25 of this code. The notice and appeal provisions of Sections 11.06.070 and 11.06.080 shall not apply to such approvals. (d) Review. In reviewing applications, the director shall give priority to those based on hazard or danger of disease. The director may refer any application to another department, committee, board or commission of the city for a report and recommendation, and may require the applicant to provide an arborist's report. Inreviewing each application, the director shall determine: (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to dis- ease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interfer- ence with public utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the trees) in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow economic enjoyment of the property; (3) The topography of the>ladd and the effect of the removal of the tree(s) on erosion; soil retention; and diver- sion or increased flow of surface waters; (4) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood on improved property and the effect the removal would have on the established standard of the area and property value. Neighborhood is defined as the area within a 300- f6ot radius of the property containing the trees) in ques- tion; (5) The number of trees the particularparcel can ade- quately support according to good arboricultural practices; (6) The effect tree removal would have on wind pro- tection, noise and privacy; and (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 2, (1993); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998); Ord. 1603 § 9, (1998)) 11.06.070 Decision by director. A decision shall be rendered by the director for each application. If an application is approved, it shall include replacement conditions in accordance with Section 11.06.090. The director shall give written notification of the decision to the applicant and all property owners within one hundred (100) feet of the property containing the tree(s) in question, and include a copy of the city Ur- ban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 11.06). (Ord. 105j,§ I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) EXHIBIT E 11.06.080 11.06.080 Appeal. Any person may appeal the decision of the director to the commission by filing an appeal in writing with the director no later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth calendar day after the decision. The director shall set the matter for review by the commission at its next regular meeting and provide notice by mail of the commission hearing to the appellant and applicant at least five (5) days prior thereto. The determination of the commission shall become final and conclusive in ten (10) days if no appeal is filed. Destruction, removal or other work on a protected tree shall not commence until after the ten (10)-day period has passed, or, if any appeal is filed, until the decision of the city council. During the period between the action of the commission and the end of the ten (l0)-day appeal period, any person may appeal such action to the city council. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the city clerk. During the same period the city council, on its own motion, may suspend the order of the commission for the purpose of reviewing the action of the commission. A permit shall be valid for six (6) months after the date it is issued. Under exceptional circumstances, the director may issue one six (6)-month extension. (Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation. (a) Whenever the development or redevelopment of a single family home, duplex, apartment house or condomin- ium results in any increase in lot coverage or habitable space (as defined by Chapter25 of this code), the property shall be required to meet the following requirements: (1) One landscape tree for every One thousand(1,000) square feet of lot coverage or habitable space for single family homes or duplexes; (2) One landscape tree for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of lot coverage for apartment houses or con- dominiums. Lot coverage and habitable space shall include both existing and new construction. The director shall deter- mine the number of existing trees which are of an accept- able size, species and location to be counted toward this requirement. Any additional trees which are required shall meet the standards for replacement trees set forth in sub- section (b) below. (b) Permits for removal of protected tree(s) shall in- clude replanting conditions with the following guidelines: (1) Replacement shall be three (3) fifteen (15)-gallon size, one twenty-four (24)-inch box size, or one thirty-six (36)-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed as determined below. (2) Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two (2) 24-inch box size, or two (2) 36-inch box size landscape trees for each tree so removed as de- termined below. (3) Replacement of a tree be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ordinance. (4) Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed. (5) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b)(1) or(2) above, as applicable, cannot be plantedon the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the city. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting. (Ord.1410 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 3, (1993); Ord. 1598 § l (part), (1998)) 11.06.100 Penalty. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing orprning a tree in violation of this ordi- nance is liable to treble damages asset forth in Section 733 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value ofthe tree as determined by the International Society of Arbori- culture Standards. (Ord. 1470 § I, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 238 EXHIBIT F From: Linda Benvenuto IindaCaantoniosaniques.com Subject: 1317 Paloma Redwood Tree Concerns Date: November 12, 2013 at 12:34 PM To: PATRICK GILSON patrickgilson�gmail.com Hi Patrick, I am sending you this email to express my concern about your two Redwood Trees. We recently had a terrible and costly experience when our sewer system and pipes were blocked and snapped due to the roots of these trees. Also, we have noticed our landscaping and concrete to be lifting and affected by these trees as well as potential foundation damage. You need to seriously consider removing these trees before they cause further damage and liabilities to my property and yours. Please feel free to call me to discuss other potential liabilities these trees are causing. Thank you so much to your attention to this very important matter Linda Linda Benvenuto President Antonio's Antiques 415-781-1737 EXHIBIT F Gina From: Patrick Gilson <patrickgilson@gmail.com> Sent: To: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 3:54 PM PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject: Re: 1321 Paloma Ave Hi Gina, I would like approval for all of the Redwoods on my property. Per the Arborist's Report - They are a liability. I have met with Michael Callan & my immediate neighbors and have every intention of replacing the Redwoods with anon evasive Species. Thankyou, Patrick Gilson > On Dec 3, 2013, at 2:06 PM, "PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina" < > GBorba(alburlingame org> wrote: - > Hi Patrick, > Thank you for forwarding the pictures. From the Arborist report which > trees by number are you looking to remove? It was not stated on the > permit application and you did not mark it on the Arborist report. > Thanks for the clarification. > Regards, > Gina Borba > Parks Secretary > 850 Burlingame Ave > Burlingame,CA 94010 >(650)558-7330 >----Original Message----- • From: Patrick Gilson [mailto•oatrickgilson@gmail coml > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 1:52 PM > To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina > Subject: 1321 Paloma Ave > Hi Gina, > Thank you for your help - Please find the attached photos. I would > also like approval for Tree #8 which is depicted below next to the sidewalk. > It has caused damage to the retaining wall. > Thank you again, > Patrick Gilson EXHIBIT F PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: PATRICK GILSON <patrickgilson@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 3:25 PM To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject 1321 Paloma Ave Attachments: 2013_12 30_15_13_29.pdf; ATT1121165.htm Hi Gina, Please find the Signed Permit attached below. Per our Conversation - I am appealing Mr. Discos decision on his denial of Trees # 2,3,4,7 & 9. Per our conversation, I would like to be put on the Feb 6'th calendar. Thank you for your help, Patrick Gilson PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Sent Monday, December 30, 2013 4:06 PM To: 'Patrick Gilson (patrickgilson@gmail.com)' Subject FW: Scanned Docs Attachments: doc20131230170711.pdf Hi Patrick, I have attached the signed Private Tree Removal Permit that is now valid. I am also in receipt of your emailed appeal request. I will place you on the February 6th Beautification Commission agenda. A letter with all the information you Will deed Will be stnl au-t'ta you yne'kuweek. lfyau 7hzve any #amber questiarm piease %t rae krhaw. Happy New Year, Gina Borba Parks Secretary 850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame CA 94010 (650)558-7330 ® T � � , ) / / % 7 / k 2 § OMER Nag / 7 \ |� % pig § I) \�\ @ §% ,\ § ( z . , �`§ :!: ......... ,! ..,| ........ ;�`! ( It/ ... . c �; � | , | - . � 41� 47_77W FT G isvil� A ASeFSf IV 4f { h Z1= i J 41,i }pry qg!• �`•' _ 7 , i 7�I4 u •s w IY� 4 R R f ,r• +'gam u J d d �1QY.Mn�Q 6y i v.✓ �-. - ]Y� December 17, 2013 Patrick Gilson 1321 Paloma Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST TO REMOVE NINE REDWOOD TREES @ 1321 PALOMA AVENUE — BURLINGAME After inspection of the Redwood trees at the property at 1321 Paloma Avenue, the following conclusions were made regarding removal. 1) Redwood #1 — The tree is growing close to the existing structure, has large surface roots and abnormal swelling at the base. — Permit Approved 2) Redwood #2, 3, 4 — All the trees are in good health with no structural issues. Permit Denied 3) Redwood #5 — The tree is in good health but is impeding full access to resident's garage. — Permit Approved 4) Redwood #6 — The tree was topped at one time and has poor structure. — Permit Approved 5) Redwood #7 — The tree is in good health and has good structure. It is damaged the neighbors 6" retaining wall and there is no damage to the driveway at this time and is not impeding access to the garage. — Permit Denied 6) Redwood #8 — The tree is in good health but is located next to the existing retaining wall and sidewalk. — Permit Approved 7) Redwood #9 — The tree has good structure and is in good health. There are no signs of damage to the existing hardscape. — Permit Denied 8) The Property is well forested, replacement with one 24-inch box size landscape trees (no fruit or nut tree) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of trees # 1, 5, 6 & 8 and deny removal of trees #2, 3, 4, 7 & 9. The trees are subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self-addressed envelope BEFORE December 30, 2013. Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our office by December 30, 2013 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued on December 30, 2013 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Property Owner Property Owner Owner 1312 Capuchin Ave 1316 Capuchin Ave Capuchino Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Owner 1328 Capuchino Ave 1311 Paloma Ave Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Owner 1317 Paloma Ave 1320 Paloma Ave Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner 1328 Paloma Ave 1329 Paloma Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property 1320 Capuchino Ave 1324 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property 1312 Paloma Ave 1316 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property 1324 Paloma Ave 1325 Burlingame, CA 94010