Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2015.03.05AGENDA BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION March 5, 2015 @ 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) 2015 Business Landscape Award Timeline VI. NEW BUSINESS 1) Appeal at 1529 Bernal Avenue — Approval to Remove a Private Oak Tree 2) Appeal at 2300 Davis Drive - Illegal Removal of a Protect Size Tree 3) Theme Blocks — Discuss trees on streets designated a "Theme Block" VII. REPORTS 1) Staff 2) Chairperson 3) Commissioners VIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting_ April 2, 2015 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 March 5, 2015 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chairperson Kirchner. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Kirchner, Commissioners Hunt, and Dittman Absent: Commissioner McQuaide and Hinckle Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, City Arborist/Park Supervisor Disco and Recording Secretary Borba. MINUTES Minutes of the February 5, 2015 meeting were approved. CORRESPONDENCE 1. Joint study session with Council scheduled for Monday, May 4, 2015 at 6:OOpm at City Hall. 2. Additional correspondence regarding "Theme Blocks." 3. P&R and Beautification Commissioner Workshop scheduled for Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 9am. 4. Correspondence from Appellant at 1354 Cortez Avenue — February BBC Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Linda Ryan, a resident on Drake Avenue, inquired about the Mills Canyon trees that were topped. 2. Pat Giorni, a resident on Balboa, stated on El Camino Real, Rosedale and Peninsula Hospital property the pedestrian bicycle project has a tree limb across the path that needs to be trimmed. She also wanted the City to be aware that the bridge in Mills Canyon needs to be replaced. OLD BUSINESS 1.2015 Business Landscape Award Commissioner Hunt will prepare a statement for the eNews. NEW BUSINESS 1. Theme Blocks Arborist Disco presented the staff report. Commission Discussion - Commissioner Dittman stated that a letter was sent out to everyone who lives on a themed block on February 20, 2015 regarding this issue. Public Comment — Pat Giorni, a resident on Balboa, spoke in favor of keeping the policy as is. She mentioned that prior to the policy the tree replacement planting made no sense. When Commission approved the Theme Block policy, they believed street trees were considered City infrastructure and infrastructure is decided by the City and not residents. She feels you shouldn't be able to change a block if it is in the middle of a street that has many blocks of themed streets. Susan Castner Payne, a resident on Concord, spoke in favor of keeping the policy as is. She felt that when the trees leaf out it looks like a cathedral and is beautiful and that a mix of trees looks shabby. Residents don't have the talent or background to choose trees. Susie Lahey, a resident on Easton, was a BBC Commissioner when the themed street policy came up. She felt that there were many discussions on trees and the value of trees to homeowners. The City does a fabulous job of maintaining street trees. Theme streets are very clear and it looks beautiful. A lot of thought and work went into creating this policy. She understands wanting to have a process to change that. Theme streets add ambiance and our canopy makes us special. She would like to see more streets volunteer to become theme blocks. Steven Lamont, a resident on Adeline, attended the meeting because he received the letter sent out. He is in favor of theme blocks, but along one side of Adeline because of utility poles there is constant pruning that makes the trees look stubby. Victor Richmond, a resident on Balboa, has all different kinds of trees on his block. He doesn't think a theme exists. His block does not meet the definition. Laura Hesselgren, a resident on Bayswater spoke in favor of themed blocks. She mentioned that it is so beautiful with all the bright colors at certain times of the year on the theme side of her house. She encouraged Commission to continue with theme blocks and not allow one block in the middle of a theme street to change because it would distract from the beauty of the theme blocks. Jennifer Pfaff, a resident on Bayswater, is in favor of theme blocks. She gave a brief history of species of trees by block in Burlingame. Long established tree patterns started to degrade by the 1990's. She became alarmed at what was not only the visual degradation of her own block but of her neighborhood. For a City long known as the City of Trees, Burlingame's streets were losing their integrity of design at an alarming rate. She mentioned that much effort went into designing this policy in 2007 to 2008. She said she is opposed to changing a 7-year young policy because of the unintended consequences that a short-term decision can have on a longer -term investment of time and recourses necessary for the establishment and/or restoration of trees and tree patterns. She said she felt it should be the City Arborist, who deals with the City trees to make the determination that a certain species has become inappropriate for Burlingame. She said that street trees are part of the City's infrastructure and belong to all people and when the planting patterns are changed, we end up with a mixed and matched mess. She suggested that those residents who have preferences for various types of trees that may not happen to be designated street trees plant them on their own property. Luis Amador, a resident on Bayswater, has a Magnolia in front of his home that shouldn't be there, he can't get solar with so much shade, it's growing into the power lines, he has had broken windshields from falling branches and it is a safety issue due to dropping fruit and lifted sidewalks. He said that it's a great tree; it's just in the wrong location. Rebecca Haslou, a resident on Stanley, didn't know she was on a theme block. She understands trees getting disease and on her block the trees had aphids that spread from tree to tree. She appreciates living on a theme street. Tom Payne, a resident on Concord, spoke in favor of theme blocks. "What we're trying to develop is a neighborhood with cohesive character. The City should encourage blocks to become theme blocks, it is welcoming and presents a beautiful image." Russ Cohen, a resident on Lexington, is in favor of theme blocks. He said it encourages the mono culture idea and there might be exceptions but it should be made difficult to breakout of a theme block. Commission Discussion — Commissioner Hunt lives on a theme street, she thinks it's beautiful and we have to have an answer as to what tree is put back in after removal. Commissioner Dittman stated we have a set of themed and non -theme blocks. It takes 2/3 of homeowners to agree and it becomes a theme block as the policy is now. The proposal is if 2/3 of the block agree, a tree theme can be removed from the theme block, but no trees will be removed at that time. A theme block can still have a mixture of trees because the trees that are healthy stay and when the City replaces a dead tree the existing trees remain. Arborist Disco agreed that establishing a policy to remove a theme block does not mean any trees would be removed. Commissioner Kirchner stated he lives on a theme block. He recommends to City Council that there be a vehicle to modify the policy to give the opportunity to remove a theme block. He doesn't think it would change much and it would take 2/3's majority to remove a theme block. Arborist Disco stated in 2008 the criteria for a theme block was if the block had 50% or more of the same variety of trees on it, it became a themed block. You can add a theme block without 50% of the trees being the same specie by following the policy of having 2/3 of the residents in agreement. Commissioner Dittman stated if some of the larger older trees have to be removed on a theme block, the City would replace with the same tree, it would be younger and smaller and that would change the canopy and look of the themed block. Commissioner Dittman moved that the Beautification Commission modify the Theme Block policy to propose revisions that provide for a process to modify or to opt out of being a Themed Block with 75% of the homeowners on the block in agreement. Commissioner Kirchner seconded the motion and the motion passed 3-0. 2. Appeal at 2300 Davis Drive — Regarding the Illegal Removal of a Private Magnolia Tree Arborist Disco presented the staff report. Commission Discussion — Commissioner Dittman stated that all that is on the permit is the tree near the electrical box. Then in the letter that came back from the homeowners, they had a tree service look at the Magnolia and said it was a serious safety concern, was under sized and no permit would be necessary for removal. Commissioner Kirchner stated that whether or not the fine is charged we will still get 2-24" box size trees. Arborist Disco reported there were two trees removed so two trees will have to be planted as replacement. Public Comment — None Appellant — Jun Chin and his wife Allison moved into the house last summer on Davis Drive. One of the first things that had to be done was upgrade the electrical box. The PG&E contractor said the tree near the box would have to be removed. So they submitted a permit to the City then found a licensed tree contractor. The contractor said another tree in the back yard, the Magnolia tree is getting into the foundation of the house. Attachment #1 picture, taken after the tree was taken down, shows there is a large crack in the patio. The contractor said the tree has to be removed or it will cause serious damage to the foundation and that it is undersized. Allison the homeowner called Gina in the Parks office to confirm and Gina left her a message. The homeowner thought that both trees were on the permit. He received a letter approving removal on December 15, 2014 of the Pittosporum and thought that the Magnolia tree was undersize so he could remove both trees. He made a consistent effort not to break the rules. He respectfully asked the commission to revoke the penalty. Commission Discussion — Commissioner Hunt asked the name of the tree company. The appellant Responded Firefighters Tree Service; they are a license contractor in San Mateo. He was told by the contractor that the tree was a single stem and undersized. Commission Hunt stated that a license tree contractor should know that the tree was of protected size. Commissioner Dittman stated one of the issues on the permit is it never said anything about the Magnolia. The big Magnolia in the backyard was never on this permit. When this permit was submitted it only asked for the Pittospourum. Commissioner Kirchner stated the Pittosporum was removed because of PG&E, the contractor said the Magnolia was too close to the foundation and had nothing to do with PG&E. Arborist Disco stated that the schematic drawing submitted with the permit only shows one tree. When he went out to the property and saw the Magnolia was gone he asked the contractor why the tree was removed and he said the homeowner told him he had a permit. The homeowner thought the roots were getting into the foundation so they removed the Magnolia. When submitting the permit they said they needed the tree removed promptly next to the PG&E box. The letter approving removal of the Pittosporum only had one tree on it. Commissioner Hunt stated that the tree company should have seen the permit before removing the trees. Commissioner Hunt moved to deny the appeal, and impose the fine of $4,800.00 and require at least 2-24" box size trees be planted on the property. Commissioner Dittman seconded the motion and the motion passed 3-0. Appeal at 1529 Bernal Avenue Retarding the Approval to Remove a Private Oak Tree Arborist Disco presented the staff report. Commissioner Discussion - Commissioner Hunt stated the tree is growing toward the light to the west and at some point the tree is going to fall over the garage. Commissioner Dittman said the Planning Commission stated the building permit required having someone there when pruning the roots. Arborist Disco stated in his project comments he noticed that the tree was in the site plan, but there was no remediation for the tree during the construction on the house. He noted on the Planning comment sheet that if the tree were going to remain an on -site arborist would need to be present for any root pruning. A few months later the property owners submitted a Private Tree Removal Permit with an independent arborist report stating the tree was dependent on the garage foundation on one side for support, and that the roots did not grow toward the foundation. Arborist Disco felt this should have been brought up during the plan review process. Commissioner Hunt asked what could be done to protect the tree and keep it from falling on the garage on the other side of the easement. Arborist Disco said there are many ways to support the tree if you want to invest the money. Commissioner Kirchner inquired if the homeowner is required to plant a replacement tree on the property. The plan has a tree in the back right corner and a Pittosporum next to the garage, which was required for the building construction. An additional tree is to be planted for the Private Protected Tree Removal Permit. Public Comment - None Appellant — Katie Wiseman a resident on Vancouver stated that Oaks are very special to her. She is protesting the removal of the Oak tree. It is very surprising to her that a City Planner can go forward and not include a tree in the plans and then later after part of the structure is removed, try to remove the tree by saying it has become a hazard so it needs to be removed. She mentioned there is a lot of new growth on the tree and the neighbors on the other side where the tree leans towards also don't want the tree removed. The tree provides significant privacy from the house and backyard. Removal would significantly impact her privacy. Commissioner Discussion — Commissioner Dittman stated trees planted to screen can lose their leaves for a couple of months. Commissioner Hunt asked is it possible to remove part of the tree and preserve some of it. Arborist Disco said yes, the tree is going all one way and it can be trimmed back to encourage growth on the other side. Commissioner Kirchner stated if we keep the tree it provides privacy but there is some risk. Commissioner Dittman stated the trees on the plans are not set in stone it is just a plan. Arborist Disco said an option maybe to plant a bigger size than a 24' box size tree with a larger canopy and keep the Oak tree for now, trim the tree and then it can be removed in the future. Commissioner Dittman liked the idea of planting a larger tree and re-establishing privacy as well as keeping the Oak and trimming the lower co - dominant leader and then re -assessing the Oak at a later time. Commissioner Dittman moved to uphold the appeal and allow the tree to remain since it provides privacy for the surrounding neighbors. The removal of the lower co -dominant leader will need to be trimmed for safety and required 1 — 36" box evergreen tree, that is fast growing with a large canopy replace the Pittosporum on the plans. Commissioner Hunt seconded the motion and all were in favor. Motion passed 3-0. REPORTS 1. Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Arborist Disco thanked the commissioner who attended the Arbor Day Ceremonies. 2. Parks & Recreation Director None I Commissioner Kirchner None 4. Commissioner Hinckle None 5. Commissioner McQuaide None 6. Commissioner Hunt None 7. Commissioner Dittman Commissioner Dittman inquired about a Monterey Pine tree #19 on Easton and Cortez. Arborist Disco reported the tree is dead and coming down. PG&E needs to remove a wire off the tree first. She also asked about the removal of 4 trees on Paloma and Broadway. Arborist Disco reported that the trees were removed per Public Works to install solar panels to power the crosswalk lights. The next Beautification Commission meeting is April 2, 2015. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15pm. Respectfully submitted, Oa XoJa Gina Borba Recording Secretary 4 To: Date: From: Subject STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM NO: MEETING DATE: Beautification Commission Submitted by March 5, 2014 Approved by Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist APPEAL REGARDING THE ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF ONE PROTECTED SIZE TREE AT 2300 Davis DR. - BURLINGAME RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends one of two options to the Commission. 1. Deny the appeal, and choose to uphold the fine, reduce the fine or wave the fine, based on Chapter 11.06.050 (a) of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance and require that at least two 24" box trees be replanted on the property. 2. Uphold the appeal and either reduce or revoke the fine, and require that at least two 24" box trees with the same size and stature be replanted on the property. BACKGROUND On December 9, 2014 a permit was submitted for the removal a "Magnolia/other tree" at the above property for the trenching of a new electrical meter. The permit noted that 'PG&E will be moving the box soon.." and that there was "no access to backyard.." and to contact homeowner ( Exhibit A). Upon inspection, the City Arborist arrived at the site and proceeded to the Davis Ct. side of the house to view the trees pictured on the map supplied by the resident. The map indicated there was a tree next to the street and one on the outside of the fence (Exhibit B). The tree near the street was determined to be a City tree and not subject to the Private Protected Tree Removal Permit. The tree on the outside of the fence was listed as a magnolia, but the correct specie was a Pittosporum. This tree was located near the electrical box, and 4ft from the existing foundation. (Exhibit C # 1). In a letter dated December 15, 2014, the permit was issued for the removal one Pittosporum tree, stating that is was growing 4 ft from the existing foundation and had poor structure with included bark (Exhibit D). 1 Subject here Council meeting date here On January 13, 2015 during a routine inspection, staff noticed that not only was the Pittosporum removed, but also a large Magnolia in the backyard was also removed. This Magnolia Tree did not have a permit for its removal and was determined to be protected, based on the size of the buttress root (Exhibit C #5). DISCUSSION The Commission should discuss if there is sufficient information that justifies the residents appeal on "..the grounds that the mistake was due to miscommunications..." as stated in their appeal letter and packet (Exhibit E). The Commission should use the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance as a guide and consider one of the recommendations above, plus, the size, location, stature and quantity of the replacement trees, and include all this in their motion. EXHIBITS A. Private Tree Removal Permit B. Hand drawn map C. Pictures #1-5 D. Private Tree Removal Approval Letter E. Homeowners appeal packet including letter and pictures. F. Chapter 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordiance 2 sf PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION RLINGAME ��", PARS & RECREATIONDEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAME AVENUE - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 DATE: QI �51 (650) 558-7330 EXHIBIT "A" The undersigned owner of the property at: ADDRESS: jOo �l(/is Dr. BGtr6ijC.[oy rt� 5(Fo�o hereby applie�,ss, f a etmit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy or roots of the following protected tree(s): ,I"tdvfue_ SPECIES J CII! CUMFERENCE , / SS ill LOCATION ON PROPERTY C1 � - fi` a Ii�t1 t�� i ti<j "S G ('Ot3 (pry w (yCrd WORK TO BE PERFORMED: _REMOVE TRIM MORE THAN 1/3 OF CANOPY REASON WORK IS NECESSARY 1'C �lg (P tt CIl i II a R 1 Ktj elP(t)-lLnclm NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) AND A SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF THE LOCATION OF C C THE TREE(S) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A IZ&g CHECK TO: I r CITY OF BURLINGAME. Attach any supporting documentation you may have. (Example: Reportfrom an Independent Arborist, pictures of dam ggqged structures, letters of concern from neighborslelc OWNER (Print)_�(IV\ C kll AlLe,4 l W�PHONE.(t r_ — , 2 SG.-J^/3 Cl_("t ADDRESS ' 30o NJVb l y , lS l,t)il iltl04 EMAIL Va00. Coiki -------------------------- PERMIT This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation a re - Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant ac wl ges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all co_nditfo ted below nd at all appeals have expired or been resolved. 'OWNER CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: C 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted an7where on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06,080, payment of $400 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacetnent(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until after Planting Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES (0 DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is.being performed. loi2omr"ised EXHIBIT "B" G# ( EXHIBIT "C" P ho W-1k, - _.� a 2300 DAVIS DR, Burlingame, CA - Google Maps Page I of I C�3 Go,* Ma.9vwlcc(t To see aYNedehis That are v'sbla on 0c soeen, use Na'PrkiP Ivlk nexl m the map. r��b Y�, 5 �, 5 1 7n^. It t I I https:Hmaps_google.com/maps?f—q&source=s a&hl=en&eeocode=&a=2300+DAVIS+DR___ 1/9/2015 2300 DAVIS DR, Burlingame, CA - Google Maps Page 1 of 1 Googte MayW1clz C04 To see all the details that are visible on the screen, use the "Print" link next to the map. https://maps.google.com/maps?f—q&source=s q&hl=en&geocode=&q=2300+DAVIS+DR... 1/9/2015 C*5 T 46 EXHIBIT "D" City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 9URUNGAM6 phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 January 13, 2015 Jun Chen/Allison Xu 2300 Davis Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF ONE PROTECTED SIZE TIME @ 2300 DAVIS DRIVE — BURLINGAME Dear Jun Chen and Allison Xu, During a recent inspection ofthe property at 2300 Davis Drive, I noticed that a protected size Magnolia tree was removed in the backyard of the property without a permit from the Parks Division. On December 9, 2014, you applied for a Protect Tree Removal Permit to remove one Pittosporum tree on your property which indicates you were aware of the rules to remove trees in the City of Burlingame. The Magnolia that was illegally removed was a protected size tree and is subject to the penalties outlined in Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance sections 11.06.050 (a) and 11.06.100. These sections state: 11.06.050 (a): "No protected tree shall be removed from any parcel without a permit except as provided in Section 11.06.040." 11.06.100 "In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing or pruning a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable to treble damages ....Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tree..." I estimate the appraised value of the illegally removed trde to be $4,800.00;. The ordinance states that any person removing a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable to treble the damages or in this case $14,400.00. In an effort to restore the Urban canopy that was removed, I am requiring that 2 — 24" box size landscape tree be planted on the property to replace the tree that was illegally removed and that a penalty of only $4,800.00 be paid into the tree replacement fund by February 15, 2015. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns at 650-558-7330 or bdisco@burlingame.org. Sincere] Bob Disco City Arborist City of Burlingame EXHIBIT "E" 02/11 /2015 Jun Chen/Allison Xu 2300 Davis Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Mr. Bob Disco City Arborist, Burlingame 850 Burlingame Av. Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Appeal of Removal of a Protected Tree @ 2300 Davis Dr. Dear Mr. Disco, We are writing in regards to your recent note on an illegal removal of a protected Magnolia tree in our backyard. We would like to appeal on the ground that the mistake was due to miscommunications, and we made sincere, repeated efforts to follow the city rules. We moved into our Burlingame house in last November and had to upgrade our electrical panel, which had only 60 AMP capacity. PG & E determined that a Pittosporum tree grew into the electrical trench and should be removed. Therefore we applied for a city permit and hired a licensed tree service, who pointed out that another tree, a Magnolia, got into the house foundation and was a serious safety concern (See Attachment 1). Based on his assessment, the Magnolia was under size and no permit was necessary. To make sure, we contacted Gina and specifically requested the Magnolia be assessed along with Pittosporum. Since it is inside a fence, we noted "Call Allison at 224-513-0150", and Gina noted "No access to backyard without contacting HO" (Attachment #2). Eventually the permit came, approving for the Pittosporum, but not mentioning the Magnolia, so we took the assumption that the Magnolia was under -size and no permit was required. Only from a recent conversation with Mr. Disco, we realized that the Magnolia was never evaluated. We just moved from Chicago to Burlingame last November. The move has been daunting with house remodeling, electrical upgrading, new jobs, new schools...... We love our community and would like to be contributing citizens in years to come. There was no intention for us to break the rule as we submitted application voluntarily, and we voluntarily approach the city about the Magnolia tree. We made sincere, repeated efforts to follow the city rules. Based on these facts, we request that you and the Beautification Committee revoke the penalty. Thank you very much for your tim and considerations. Jun Pennd Allison Xu It NOdel, PC- �t✓�5�''' r� 3� (9i t ip B x 1 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL .1 FLINGAME PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS.& RECREATIONDEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAME AVENUE - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 `, (650) 558-7330 DATE: ��' 054 The undersigned owner oftheproperty at: ADDRESS: 23I) fl'O i�0'S ()r, LtY�ift��itl c11 � ors hereby appliys,f a ermit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy or roots of the following protected tree(s): l OvuwA SPECIES CIRCUMFERENCE SS tD LOCATION ON PROPERTY C'I ( --rlt 4—deUT f r'c -r S`C -I Oh Ckf t �11 C yo'd WORK TO BE PERFORMED: __REMOVE TRIM MORE THAN 1/3 OF CANOPY REASON WORK IS NECESSARY J�C 111 q (e It CQ l II _ R Lf l do efecht d Pei'Ir-(l —os .5cife 4 NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) AND A SCHEMATIC DRAWING OF THE LOCATION OF /� C THE TREE(S) ON THE PROPERTY MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A $75.00 CHECK TO: `t CITY OF BURLINGAME. Attach any supporting documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an IndependentArborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concernfrom neighbors, etcy). OWNER (Print) I (M GIA E V/ Affi t- A,&PHONU Wr r �% z 2 S, •- P13 - 0/_rC ADDRESS ?30° D�.�� fir, 13u�'Lt'►1ti�11,� EMAIL _j0d1eh),0"1W- C-"VaO'.Cowl This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s)in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestationree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Coe Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit the applicant acl 1 ges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all condi a below• d at all appeals have expired or been resolved. 'OWNER CITY ARBORIST - 10 f)-xn o ,,, CA CONDITIONS: PQ I C.24 -inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and m pv be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as speed in Section 11.06.080, payment of $400 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) completed BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES (-- —7 _I ^K DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being per armed. 1o/2ouirased #3 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 �g � L ► w �s"'vramcn*�� January 13, 2015 Jun Chen/Allison Xu 2300 Davis Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF ONE PROTECTED SIZE TREE @ 2300 DAVIS DRIVE —BURLINGAME Dear Jun Chen and Allison Xu, During a recent inspection of the property at 2300 Davis Drive, I noticed that a protected size Magnolia tree was removed in the backyard of the property without a permit from the Parks Division. On December 9, 2014, you applied for a Protect Tree Removal Permit to remove one Pittosporum tree on your property which indicates you were aware of the rules to remove trees in the City of Burlingame. The Magnolia that was illegally removed was a protected size tree and is subject to the penalties outlined in Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance sections 11.06.050 (a) and 11.06.100. These sections state: 11.06.050 (a): `No protected tree shall be removed from any parcel without a permit except as provided in Section 11.06.040" 11.06.100 "In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing or pruning a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable to treble damages ....Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tree..." I estimate the appraised value of the illegally removed tree to be $4,800.00. The ordinance states that any Person removing a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable to treble the damages or in this case $14,400.00. In an effort to restore the Urban canopy that was removed, I am requiring that 2 — 24" box size landscape tree be planted on the property to replace the tree that was illegally removed and tha a penalty of only $4,800.00 be paid into the tree replacement fund by February 15, 2015. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns at 650-558-7330 or bdisco@burlingame.org. Sincerel Bob Disco City Arborist City of Burlingame EXHIBIT'T" MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 11.06 URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE PROTECTION 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 protected 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 microclimatic 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 construction 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 of private property. (Ord. 1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.020 Definitions. Terms used in this chapter shall be defined as follows: (a) "Commission" means the Beautification Commission of the city of Burlingame. (b) "Department" means the parks and recreation department of the city of Burlingame- (c) "Development or redevelopment" means any work upon any property in the city of Burlingame which requires a subdivision, variance, use permit, building permit or other approval or which involves excavation, landscaping, or construction in the vicinity of a protected tree. (d) "Director" means the director of parks and recreation 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 importance 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 determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. (g) " Tuning" 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, extraction, killing by spraying, girdling, or any other means. (Ord. 1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 1, (1993); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.030 Nomination and listine of Protected trees. Nomination for protected tree status under Section 11.06.020(1)(2) may be made by any citizen. The commission shall review such nominations and present its recommendations to the city council for designation. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the department and shall be available for distribution to interested citizens. The city council may remove a designated tree from the list upon its own motion or upon request. Requests for such action may originate in the same manner as nominations for protected tree status. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.040 ) meryencies. In the event that an emergency condition arises whereby immediate action is necessary because of disease, or danger to life or property, a protected tree may be removed 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 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992), Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.050 Prohibitions and Protections. (a) No protected tree shall he removed from any parcel 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 destroyed 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 director whenever soil fill is placed around protected trees; and (5) Signs, wires or similar devices shall not be attached to protected trees. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.060 Notices and Permits reanired for removal or work significantly affecting protected trees. (a) Removal or Pruning. Owners, or their authorized representative, of protected trees on public or private property shall obtain a permit to remove or prune a protected tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the department and shall state, among other things, the number and location of the tree(s) to be removed or primed by type(s) and the reason for removal or priming 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 priming. (c) Removal or Priming of Protected Trees on Undeveloped 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 department of the city, the person making such an application shall file a site plan showing the location of buildings or structures or of proposed site disturbances, and the location of all trees. The director shall determine if all protected trees are shown. An authorized representative of the department shall make an inspection and shall file a report of his or her findings and recommendations to the director. Subject to the replacement provisions of Section 11.06.090, the director shall approve the removal of protected 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. In reviewing each application, the director shall determine: (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public utility services; (2) The necessity to remove the tree(s) in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow economic enjoyment of the property; (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the removal of the tree(s) on erosion; soil retention; and diversion 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-foot radius of the property containing the tree(s) in question; (5) The number of trees the particular parcel can adequately support according to good arboricultural practices; (6) The effect tree removal would have on wind protection, 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 § I (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 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 11.06). (Ord. 1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998)). 11.06.080 Anneal. 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 (10)-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 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation. (a) Whenever the development or redevelopment of a single family home, duplex, apartment house or condominium results in any increase in lot coverage or habitable space (as defined by Chapter 25 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 condominiums. Lot coverage and habitable space shall include both existing and new construction. The director shall determine the number of existing trees which are of an acceptable 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 subsection (b) below. (b) Permits for removal of protected tree(s) shall include 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 determined 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 planted on 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. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 3, (1993); Ord.1598 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.100 Penalty. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing or pruning a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable to treble damages as set forth in Section 733 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arboriculture Standards. (Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) AGENDA ITEM NO: BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE; To: Beautification Commission Submitted by Date: March 5, 2015 Approved by From: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist Subject Expansion of the Therned Block Policv RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission review the existing Theme Block policy and determine if staff should propose revisions the Theme Block policy with procedures that provide for a process to remove or modify a themed block. On October 20, 2008 the City Council approved the Beautification Commission's recommendations to create blocks of themed street trees and to adopt blocks with themed street trees (Exhibit A). This was after community input at both the Commission and Council level. The policy established 98 blocks as "themed blocks" and an additional 28 blocks with alternate replacement trees as well as created a procedure to establish a street tree themed block. The procedure to establish a themed block was included to address the future desire of the public to request the Commission add themed blocks to the list (Exhibit B). Recently several residents have requested the desire to remove their street from the themed block list. This has raised the question of the process to remove or modify an existing themed block. DISCUSSION An option is to use the exiting process for establishing a themed block as the format to modify or remove a theme block. The current process to add a theme block requires a petition with 213 signatures of property owners on the block be presented to Commission (Exhibit B). Staff can develop a form this purpose. This form could be used to remove a theme block or modify a theme block and would follow the same process as adding a theme block. 1 Expansion of the Themed Block Policy March 5, 2016 If the Commission requests staff to add this procedure to address requested changes to ebsting theme blocks, staff would present the modifications to the City Council for approval. A Commission recommendation to keep the policy the same will not proceed to Council. EXHIBITS A. Themed Block Policy B. Petition to Apply for Establishment of a Street Tree Themed Block C. October 6, 2008 Staff Report to City Council recommending adoption of a Themed Block Policy. D. Email correspondence 2 EXHIBIT "A" City of Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department City Street Tree Themed Blocks The Burlingame City Council adopted a policy to establish 126 street tree themed blocks. A street tree themed block is a block in which one defined species of street tree is established and maintained indefinitely. If a street tree is removed for any reason the tree will be replaced with the same species. The Council also approved a policy for establishing new themed blocks. These policies were established to help maintain the historic beauty and charm of these blocks for future generations. If you would like more information contact the Parks and Recreation Department at 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010, or call (650) 558-7330. Themed Blocks in Burlingame Of the 126 blocks established as themed blocks, 98 will be maintained with the same species. The remaining 28 blocks are planted with trees that are no longer considered as appropriate street trees. As trees are removed, these blocks would be replanted with different species that will maintain the aesthetic feel and canopy of the original dominant species. The designated replacement trees for these blocks are listed in the right column on the Themed Block List. Policy for Establishing Themed Blocks The policy for establishing a new "Themed Block" is as follows: • The Beautification Commission will recommend "Themed Blocks" to the City Council. • To petition the Beautification Commission for a new themed block a property owner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 2/3 of the property owners on the block. • Forms for the `Petition" will be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department Office. • Petitions shall be forwarded to the Beautification Commission for recommendation to the Council to establish a new "theme&" block. • A public hearing will be set by the Beautification Commission and notification will be sent by staff to all property owners on the block. • If approved, staff will determine the species theme in collaboration with the property owners. • Selected "themed" species will replace existing trees only when removal of an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. Petitions for establishing a new themed block are available at the Parks and Recreation Department Office, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010. EXHIBIT "B" City of Burlingame Petition to Apply for Establishment of a Street Tree Themed Block (Only this form can be used to gather signatures) Definition of a Street Tree Themed Block: A street tree themed block is defined as a block in which one defined species of street tree is established and maintained indefinitely. Once a themed block is established and a tree is removed for any reason, the tree would be replaced with a tree of the established theme species. The Beautification Commission and City Council use the following criteria when considering establishment of a themed block: the percent of predominant tree species, health and disease tolerance of the species, amount of tree diversity, mix of species, age, aesthetic look on the block, current tree canopy, future canopy potential, width of the street, and the width of planter strips. Policy to Establish a Themed Block • The Beautification Commission will recommend "Themed Blocks" to the City Council. • To petition the Beautification Commission for a new themed block a property owner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 2/3 of the property owners on the block. • Forms for the "Petition" will be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department Office. • Petitions shall be forwarded to the Beautification Commission for recommendation to the Council to establish a new "themed" block. • A public hearing will be set by the Beautification Commission and notification will be sent by staff to all property owners on the block. • If approved by the Beautification Commission and/or the City Council, staff will determine the species theme in collaboration with the property owners., • Selected "themed" species will replace existing trees only when removal of an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. Street and Block Requested for Consideration: Street Tree Species Street Tree Themed Block Signature Form Property Owner Statement: I am the property owner at the address listed below and I support the Beautification Commission and City Council establishing this block as a Street Tree Themed Block within the City of Burlingame with the above listed tree species as the themed tree. Date I Property Address I Property Owner Name(s) (Printed) I Property Owner Signature EXHIBIT "C" TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: October 6, 2008 FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) AGENDA ITEM # _ MTG. DATE SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: SUBJECT: POLICY ADOPTION FOR ESTABLISHING BLOCKS WITH THEMED STREET TREES RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council (1) Establish 98 blocks as street tree themed blocks, (2) Establish an additional 28 blocks as themed blocks with alternate replacement trees, and (3) Approve the recommendation of the Beautification Commission on the creation of a Policy to Establish a Street Tree Themed Block. BACKGROUND: A street tree themed block is defined as a block in which one defined species of street tree is established and maintained indefinitely. Once a themed block is established and a tree is removed for any reason, the tree would be replaced with a tree of the established theme species. The idea for establishing themed blocks was first introduced to the Council by two interested citizens who want to help maintain the historic and aesthetic look and feel of several blocks that currently have a dominant tree species. The idea was referred to the Beautification Commission for consideration. In April, the Burlingame Beautification Commission heard the proposal which included discussion on a number of topics including the following: width of available planting areas, altering current planting lists, changing how street trees are selected by district(block/neighborhood, (re)introducing the concept of dominant species, updating the tree inventory, and potential elimination of tree categories from planting plans (ornamentals and evergreens). In May, Director Schwartz facilitated a discussion between the Commission and community members and as a result of that discussion the Commission made the following recommendations to the City Council. • Retain existing "themed" streets in the City of Burlingame by replacing with existing specie, if the dominant tree on the street is a tall tree even if it disrupts sidewalks • Do not create "themed" streets where they currently do not exist and allow the property owners to choose off of the appropriate tree list • Revisions be made by staff to the official street tree lists to contain trees that only have the tallest, most significant canopies • In addition, retain "ornamentals" and "evergreen" tree species that have the tallest, most significant canopies on the official tree lists • Include some larger species from 6' planter strip list to the 3-6' planter strip list where possible or change dimensions of planting strip requirements • Create larger planting spaces throughout the City where possible • Only remove and replace trees when an existing tree must be removed • Tree planting should begin as soon as possible The City Council heard the agenda item at the June 6 Council Meeting. There was general consensus for all of the above items. As a result of the Commission action and Council consensus, staff prepared a Draft Themed Block List and Policy for Establishing a Themed Block, that was presented at the August 7, 2008 Beautification Commission meeting. Themed Blocks in Burlingame Staff began the process of establishing a draft list of themed streets by identifying streets/blocks that have 50 percent or more single species. Each street(block was evaluated based on the following factors: the percent of predominant tree species, health and disease tolerance of the species, amount of tree diversity, mix of species, age, aesthetic look on the block, current tree canopy, future canopy potential, width of the street, and the width of planter strips. Attached is a draft list of streetsiblocks that staff recommends establishing as themed streets within the City of Burlingame. The themed street list was created without consideration for planter width dimensions as recommended by the Commission. Staff then surveyed the street trees and identified a total of 126 blocks that currently qualify as themed blocks. Staff is recommending that 98 of the themed blocks be maintained with the same species. The remaining 28 blocks are planted with trees that have poor structures or serious health issues and are no longer considered as appropriate street trees. As trees are removed, these blocks would be replanted with different species that will maintain the aesthetic feel and canopy of the original dominant species. Staff recommendations for replacement trees are listed in the right column of the Themed Block List. Staff took input from Commissioners and the general public during the month of August in preparation for the public hearing on the item scheduled for the meeting of September 4, 2008. As a result of this input, staff made the following recommendations for revisions to the Draft Themed Block List: Add the following themed blocks for consideration: • 200, 1000, 1100, 1200, 1300 blocks of Bayswater as themed Ginko blocks • 2100 block of Trousdale as a themed Modesto Ash block: The replacement tree would be the Raywood Ash Additionally, staff was asked to consider adding the following blocks: The remainder of Trousdale. This block did not meet the criteria for a themed block. Staff agrees that the wide street would benefit from a larger canopy but residents have expressed concern about view obstructions in this area. Planting tall large canopy trees would violate the intent of the tree view policy. If this was to be considered it would need to be approved after a public hearing by both the Beautification Commission and the City Council. Staff does not recommend creating the remainder of Trousdale as a themed block at this time. 100 Block of Bloomfield. This block did not meet the criteria for a themed block. Staff agrees that large canopy trees would be ideal for this block but not as an established themed block. Due to the fact that the Liquid Ambers are being replaced and that they are not significantly dominant, staff believes that encouraging the planting of a variety of large canopy trees would be more appropriate for this block. 1600 Block of Balboa. This block did not meet the criteria for a themed block. Over the last 20 years many of the dominant species Camphor trees have been removed and have been replaced by a variety of other species. The street would benefit from using replacement trees with a large canopy tree when possible. The Beautification Commission held a public hearing on the item, received input from the community, and adopted the List of Themed Blocks with the recommended revisions. Policy for Establishing Themed Blocks Upon adoption of the List of Themed Blocks, the Commission considered a policy to address the future establishment of themed blocks. Over time the public may desire to request the Commission add themed blocks to the list. Staff presented the draft policy for review at the August 7, 2008 Beautification Commission meeting. A public hearing was conducted at the meeting of September 4, 2008 to consider this policy. After public input the Commission adopted the following policy proposal. Policy to Establish a Themed Block within the City of Burlingame: • The Beautification Commission will recommend "Themed Blocks" to the City Council. • To petition the Beautification Commission for a new themed block a property owner on a block shall gather signatures of at least 2/3 of the properly owners on the block. • Forms for the "Petition" will be provided by the Parks and Recreation Department Office. • Petitions shall be forwarded to the Beautification Commission for recommendation to the Council to establish a new "themed" block • A public hearing will be set by the Beautification Commission and notification will be sent by staff to all property owners on the block • If approved, staff will determine the species theme in collaboration with the property owners. • Selected "themed" species will replace existing trees only when removal of an existing tree is deemed necessary according to City policy. The Beautification Commission recommends the Council adopt the List of Themed Blocks and the Policy for Establishing Themed Blocks. BUDGET ]IMPACT: The establishment of themed blocks and a themed block policy would have no immediate impact on the budget. The establishment of the themed block list does maintain 13 blocks with trees that are larger than recommended for the current planter width and could create new ones. Over time this may cause increased sidewalk replacement or relocation of the sidewalk on these blocks. ATTACHMENTS: Draft City of Burlingame Themed Blocks List EXHIBIT "D" PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: PARKS -Disco, Bob Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 11:38 AM To: 'rsmrpero@yahoo.com' Cc: COUNCIL -Nagel, Terry; PARKS/REC-Glomstad, Margaret, PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject: RE: Tree Planting Good morning Ms. Pero, Mayor Nagel sent me your email concerning the tree in front of your house. The City Council did adopt a policy that established themed street trees on 126 streets throughout Burlingame The two tree across the street from you were planted in 1997 which was before the themed block policy became effective, that is why those trees are different. The Parks Division is required to replace any tree that was removed with the same species as the rest of the block, in order to maintain the historic beauty and charm of the block. If you disagree with this policy, I encourage you to attend an upcoming Beautification Commission meeting and voice your opinions. This would allow the Commission the opportunity possibly include this item on a future agenda for discussion. This would be the first step to revaluation this policy. The Beautification Commission meets every first Thursday of the month at 6:30pm at the Park and Recreation Department at 850 Burlingame Ave. The few next meetings scheduled are on Thursday, February 51n and Thursday, March 5`n Please let me know if you have any further questions, Bob Disco Park Supervisor/City Arborist City of Burlingame 650.558.7334 bdisco@burlingame.org Begin forwarded message: From: Rosemarie Pero <rsmrpero(a�yahoo.com> Date: February 3, 2015 at 4:15:40 PM PST To: "tnaaelna,burlingame.org" <tnagel(a)burlin ame.org> Subject: Tree Planting My name is Rosemarie Pero and my husband and I live at 536 Francisco Dr. We bought our home back in 1995. On our street, there are a number of sick sycamores. Ours was the worst. It has finally been removed. We don't want another sycamore planted in our yard. I have been emailing Gina Borba at Parks & Rec (case #17385) and she informs me that the City Council was the one who designated our street for sycamores only. The city has stopped caring for these trees and slowly they are starting to wither and die. The house directly across the street had a couple of trees planted a number of years ago. Very pretty deep pink flowers. I want the same trees as my neighbors across the street. I'm asking for you to reconsider this "Themed Block" nonsense. Sincerely, Rosemarie Pero Sent from my iPad PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: Tony DeMarco <tonyfd@gmail.com> Sent Thursday, February 26, 2015 9:06 AM To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject Re evaluation of theme block letter Hi My name is Tony DeMarco, I live at 1804 Easton Drive, Burlingame. I received a vauge letter from Rec/Park yesterday regarding a few residents wanting to re evaluate the street trees I am assuming the gum trees on Easton Drive is this correct? If so what is the intention of the letter and why are a few residents challaging the existing environment. PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: Jane Dunbar <bookgroupie64@gmail.com> Sent Wednesday, February 25, 2015 4:18 PM To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject. Trees on "themed blocks" Dear Bob: I live on the corner of Bloomfield and Concord. You only have to look at the magnificent trees on Concord to see the striking aesthetic effect of planting one species grouped together and I strongly support this concept. The only reason for deviating, as far as I can imagine, would be if a species had been chosen with roots disrupting the sidewalk, or in the case of disease. When a resident moves onto a "themed block" they can see in advance what they are getting, so would not be in a strong position to request something different. I hope no change will be made. On a slightly different topic, I have a question for you in your role as City Arborist: the trees on Concord are huge, with enormous branches that readily shed pieces during storms. It is evident that these trees were once pollarded, something that should have been continued on a regular basis. Have you in the past year reviewed the safety of these trees and considered any pruning? Surely it is past time. Thank you. Jane Dunbar 325 Bloomfield Road 650-342-9273 Gina From: Susan <slhouston@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 5:57 PM To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject Themed Block policy Dear Beautification Committee, I have lived on a designated theme block for thirty years. Our Ginkgo trees are so beautiful and it is so lovely to drive down the street and see similar trees with all of their glory. It gives our street a sense of unity and our residents some exercise as we rake up the beautiful yellow leaves. Please do not change this policy. Sincerely, Susan Houston and Guillermo Acevedo Sent from my iPad PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: Edward Watson <ewatsoncpa@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:13 PM To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject Themed Blocks Mr. Disco, My name is Liz Watson. My husband Ed and I reside at 1444 Balboa, a "themed block". My husband has lived in this house most of his life. I have lived here for over 40 years. Our block is "themed" for flowering catalpa trees, one of which we have in front of our house. Our tree is wonderful. It has wonderfully large leaves that throw a wonderful shadow over the front of our house protecting our landscaping during drought years and helping to keep the house cool in hot weather. It provides shade and beauty throughout the year with blossoms and large leaves that our grandchildren love to play in when they cover the lawn in the fall. In recent years some of the trees on our block (including the recent planting in front of 1446 Balboa) have been replaced with trees that shed 2 inch round spiked seed pods in the fall. These pods are a hazard to the elderly and young. A twisted ankle waiting to happen. And don't dare walk to your neighbors bare foot without zig zagging through a "spiked pod" field. While they do have beautiful fall foliage the risk of looking at it and spraining an ankle isn't worth it. I appreciate getting notice of this. Please, please find some more flowering catalpas and keep the beauty this block has had for 60+ years. They are wonderful majestic trees that provide beauty and shade. Thank you, Liz Watson Ed Watson Sent from my iPad PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina From: Krista Hanson <kristakhanson@gmail.com> Sent Tuesday, February 24, 2015 8:33 PM To: PARKS/REC-Borba, Gina Subject Reevaluation of "theme block" tree policy Dear Sir or Madam: Today we received a letter from Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department stating that some residents have requested the city reevaluate its policy of maintaining uniform species of trees on "theme blocks," on one of which our house is located. My husband and I strongly oppose reevaluation of this policy. We have lived in our house on Bloomfield Road since 1978, and the reason we chose this location is that we loved the way the street looked, with 2 lines of sycamore trees. These trees make the neighborhood, which is flat and on a grid pattern, look more beautiful and elegant than it would were the streets lined with a random jumble of unmatched trees and bushes. They tie the neighborhood together visually and make us proud to live on such a lovely street. Please do not change your policy. Respectfully, Krista and Eric Hanson 431 Bloomfield Road City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 `° ���, BUPLINW'ME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 January 30, 2015 Helen Miranda 1529 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL REGARDING THE APPROVAL TO REMOVE A PRIVATE OAK TREE @ 1529 BERNAL AVENUE - BURLINGAME We are in receipt of a letter from the property owner at 1524 Vancouver Avenue appealing the approval to remove the Private Oak tree at 1529 Bernal Avenue. The appeal will be forwarded to the Burlingame Beautification Commission and a hearing will be scheduled for the meeting on Thursday, March 5, 2015. It is suggested that you provide any supporting documentation regarding the appeal for the Burlingame Beautification Commissioners review by February 16, 2015 to the Parks Division office at 850 Burlingame Avenue or by email at gborba@burlingame.org. The Beautification Commission meets at 6:30 PM at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, (Conference Room) should you wish to attend and address the Commission regarding this matter. The property owner and adjacent property owners are also being sent copies of this letter, pursuant to City Ordinance, so they may attend the Commission meeting and make any comments if they wish to do so. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/Arborist Enclosures CC: Property Owner 1524 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1524 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1525 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 1532 Bernal Avenue 1535 Bernal Avenue 1528 Vancouver Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1528 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1532 Vancouver Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 `° ���, BUPLINW'ME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 January 30, 2015 Mathew Wiseman and Katie Spayde 1524 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL REGARDING THE APPROVAL TO REMOVE A PRIVATE OAK TREE @ 1529 BERNAL AVENUE - BURLINGAME We are in receipt of the enclosed letter appealing the approval to remove the Private Oak tree at 1529 Bernal Avenue. The appeal will be forwarded to the Burlingame Beautification Commission and a hearing will be scheduled for the meeting on Thursday, March 5, 2015. It is suggested that you provide any supporting documentation regarding the appeal for the Burlingame Beautification Commissioners review by February 16, 2015 to the Parks Division office at 850 Burlingame Avenue or by email at gborba@burlingame.org. The Beautification Commission meets at 6:30 PM at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, (Conference Room) should you wish to attend and address the Commission regarding this matter. The property owner and adjacent property owners are also being sent copies of this letter, pursuant to City Ordinance, so they may attend the Commission meeting and make any comments if they wish to do so. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/Arborist Enclosures CC: Helen Miranda 1529 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1524 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1525 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 1532 Bernal Avenue 1535 Bernal Avenue 1528 Vancouver Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1528 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1532 Vancouver Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 @° BUPL1N9fkME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 6 March 10, 2015 Jun Chen and Allison Xu 2300 Davis Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL TO DENY ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF ONE PRIVATE PROTECTED SIZE TREE @ 2300 DAVIS DRIVE — BURLINGAME At the Burlingame Beautification Commission meeting on March 5, 2015, the Commission voted 3-0, To deny the appeal, and impose the fine of $4,800.00 and require at least 2 — 24" box size trees be planted on the property. The determination of the Commission shall become final and conclusive in ten (10) days if no appeal is filed. During the period between the action of the Commission and the end of the ten (10) day appeal period, any person may appeal the Commission determination to the City Council. Such appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the City Clerk before 5 pm on the tenth day following the Commissioner's decision. The address of the City Clerk is 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. The appeal and noticing fee of $255 shall be included with the written appeal (made payable to the City of Burlingame). An invoice will be sent to you from the City of Burlingame for payment of the fine. Completion of payment for the above fine and planting requirement will need to be completed by April 30, 2015 if not appealed to the City Council. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist