The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2017.09.07City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 . F Meeting Agenda - Final Beautification Commission Thursday, September 7, 2017 6:30 PM Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES a. BBC Julv Minutes Attachments: BBC July 2017 Draft mg.docx 4.CORRESPONDENCE 5. 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. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Business Landscape Award Recognition Update b. Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Recognition Update 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Welcome New BBC Commissioner - Qiva Dinuri b. Oath of Office - Qiva Dinuri C. Appeal to the Denied Tree Removal Permit at 2714 Easton Drive Attachments: 2714 Easton Dr.pdf City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 813112017 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final September 7, 2017 8. REPORTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting: October 5, 2017 Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 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 for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 813112017 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION DRAFT Minutes July 6, 2017 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Hunt. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunt, Hinckle, Kearney and Kirchner Absent: Commissioner Dinuri Staff. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Disco and Recording Secretary Borba Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Kearney noted that in the June minutes under Correspondence all Commissioners received the email from Brendon Kelly. Commissioner Hinkle made a motion to approve the June 1, 2017 minutes as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirchner and unanimously approved. CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT None OLD BUSINESS 1. Sustainable Landscape Award Commissioners discussed the reasons they nominated the 9 addresses and voted. 721 Walnut Avenue was chosen as the 2017 Sustainable Landscape Award winner by a 3-1 vote. 1311 Bayswater Avenue was awarded Honorable Mention. Commissioner Kirchner will notify the homeowners. Letters will be sent to the nominated addresses to inform them of the winners. 2. Business Landscape Award Commissioner Kirchner stated there are 7 nominations for the Business Landscape Award. Commissioners discussed the nominated business landscapes and voted. 1427 Chapin Lane was selected as the 2017 Business Landscape Award winner by a 4-0 vote. Commissioner Kirchner will notify the property owner at 1427 Chapin Lane. NEW BUSINESS None REPORTS 1. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist There are two eucalyptus tree removals are remaining on the 300 block of Burlingame Ave. The eucalyptuses have grown into the wires and are scheduled with PG&E for removal the end of July. Replanting with Eucalyptus Citriodora's will continue as they become available from the nursery. Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification project from Burlingame to San Jose will result in the removal of 11 trees, 10 in the Caltrain easement and one City tree. Caltrain will be trimming 47 trees starting the end of July. 2. Director Glomstad None 3. Commissioner Hunt None 4. Commissioner Hinckle Commissioner Hinckle inquired about the response from the public regarding the eucalyptus tree removals on Burlingame Avenue. Director Glomstad stated most comments were favorable to the removals but there were questions about why the City is replanting eucalyptus trees. Commissioner Hinckle also inquired about who owns the trees on California Drive from Trousdale Drive going north. Arborist Disco stated that the Joint Powers owns the trees but the City trims and maintains them. 5. Commissioner Kirchner Commissioner Kirchner noted that the Eucalyptus Citriodora's are very popular and a good choice for Burlingame Avenue replanting. He also mentioned that the El Camino Real Task Force's last meeting was about the density of the trees for replanting. 6. Commissioner Kearney Commissioner Kearney stated that when looking at all the sites for the landscape awards she noticed that many homes and businesses put in a lot of effort into their landscaping. The next Beautification Commission meeting is August 3, 2017. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Administrative Staff a� CITV O� STAFF REPORI To: Beautification Commission Date: September 7, 2017 From: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist Subject: Appeal to the Removal of 1 Deodar Cedar tree at 2714 Easton Drive RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends one of two options to the Commission. 1. Deny the appeal because the tree is healthy, has been maintained and there is no indication that the tree is structurally unsound. 2. Uphold the appeal based on the economic consequences and obligations to the homeowner by requiring the tree remain; Ch. 11.06.060 (d)(7) (Exhibit D) and request the City Arborist to determine the type, location and number of replacement tree(s). BACKGROUND On July 17, 2017 a permit was submitted for the removal of a Deodar Cedar tree at 2714 Easton Drive (Exhibit A). As part of a recent building project, the permit required that the cedar tree be protected and maintained during construction. Davey began maintenance of this tree in January 2014 and provided services that included tree pruning and aphid treatments (Exhibit B). In addition, Davey Tree Experts Company maintained the tree during the building project. The tree is located on a terraced slope several feet from the existing structure. The City Arborist inspected the tree on July 24, 2017 and denied the removal because the tree appears healthy and has no visible signs of disease or structural issues (Exhibit C). Subsequently, the property owner appealed this decision based on health and safety and the economic consequences of the tree remaining (Exhibit B). DISCUSSION The homeowner's reason for removal is based on the excessive cost and damage that is being accrued by the presence of aphids on the tree (Exhibit B). The honeydew that is dropping from the leaves is damaging the stairs, walkways, furnishings and walls in their front patio. The property owner asserts that the cost to clean and maintain these items has become a burden (Exhibit B). Aphids are considered "sucking" insects and as they feed, they secrete a sticky substance known as "honeydew". Honeydew drips on the leaves and creates a black mold that often falls on sidewalks, patios and plants under the tree. The sticky substance attracts ants, is messy and difficult to remove on hard surfaces. Typically, aphids are easily controlled by a systemic insecticide that is injected into the soil around the tree where the chemical can be absorbed by the roots. The Davey report notes that they did perform annual aphid treatment and that "there is no further treatment or pruning effort that would mitigate the current sap damage." The City Arborist performed a Level 1 Visual Assessment of the tree which included inspecting the trunk, buttress roots, and canopy for decay, disease and structural integrity. The lowest limbs were several feet high and the presence of aphids was not confirmed. Before making a determination, the Commission's discussion should consider the current health, structure and location of the tree verses the economic consequences and obligations of requiring this tree to remain. EXHIBITS Exhibit A — Private Protected Tree Removal Permit Exhibit B — William Cunningham Appeal Letter and Packet Exhibit C— City Arborist Denial Letter Exhibit D — Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance 2 EXHIBIT A -1/Z(/1-1 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL. 9t}RLINGAME I PERMIT APPLICATION Parks ci: Recreation Department -. 850 BitrIirtgartteAvenue Bitrliiigrtnte, ClI 94#10 Date: Ju\ 1y 1 �? D �' (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property nt: Address.-_ Z L.ltStp t/1 Vy 1�(�, hereby applies for a pernut to remove or prune more than I/' of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: D eo &ex V Cc d y' Circumference: 3011 Location on Property �� RPei/_y�( d � 1A car �/t,puse, Work to be Performed: �►—t—Removal_ Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: ac- :bcce.,� Cat,t.Slvl S j ° 1AIthCA t&t {�Vl� nIC✓ rA e . Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES -NO }� Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the trec(s) on the property must be submitted along with S75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attack arts' documentation you tnay /rave. (Crumple: Repoli front an Independent Arborisi, pictures gI'daniciged structures, letters of'concern fivin neighbors, etc.). Owner (Print) U�I1 Ltt AWi �.. NULI Ltt�Wl �or50 Phone 3 (D _ 76 5 J O3 4j- Address —--Elllilll jiIIQ CtAytt�t.lY�g6M (J VCO,(eh (ifdifferent than abom) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------_----_-. PEIUIIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Pat,nzent 1tec._7( ("7 (gunent ilfethod U(sm- This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Niunicipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing pp acknowledges receippt of a copy of Chapter 1 1.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions aW all Icondaoons Ihstedpbelo t and that all appeals have expi� r been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE �`"� l W i 14wk CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape free(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and neap be planted ant,where on the property. If conditions are trot met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter Il.o6.o9O(b)(5), pajnnent of $700for each tree into the tree replacement fund ►rill be required. NO replacentent(s) required, Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when r•enioval(v) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. • Permit inef/ectiue troll/ tf ter Planning Cnnntrissian reriew. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPUTED This ivork should be clone by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. 081-015revised EXHIBIT B William L. Cunningham -Corso 2714 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA. 94010 August 2, 2017 Via email Robert Disco Park Superintendent and City Arborist City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Appeal of Denial of Tree Removal Permit Dear Mr. Disco: We wish to appeal the denial of a permit to remove the deodar cedar tree from the front yard of our home at 2714 Easton Drive. We understand the appeal will be heard by the Beautification Committee at its meeting on September 7, 2017. The primary reasons for the appeal are: 1. Health and Safety Hazard. The tree is producing an unusual and unreasonable amount of sap that is creating a health and safety hazard. The sap is present in large quantities on the steep steps leading to the front entrance. It is very sticky and can cause someone to trip. This justifies removal under BMC § I 1.06.060(d)(1). 2. Economic Consequences. The sap attached quicldy to shoes and cannot be removed effectively. Anyone entering the house from the front steps tracks the sap onto the hardwood floors. The sap on the stairs, walkways, front patio, railings, fixtures, wall caps and stucco walls cannot be removed by any reasonable means. We have tries power -washing and other methods. The removal efforts damage the pavers and paint on railings and fixtures, and are not very effective. The cost to fully clean and re -seal the pavers and repaint rails, etc. is $27,500, but this is without any warranty for damage due to continuing tree sap and will have to be repeated annually. The cost to tear out and replace the damaged improvements will be $200,000 or more, as all of this is custom work. Because of the sap condition, we are unable to use the front entryway, steps, and decks. The front gate is locked and chained. We cannot allow our daughters to use the front yard at all. These economic consequences justify removal under BMC § 11.06.060(d)(7). We had the tree evaluated by Davey Tree Expert Company (please see attached report). It is unclear whether this report was considered before our permit application was denied. The report Page I 1 states that we have made every reasonable effort to preserve the tree and mitigate the sap condition, without success. The tree was successfully treated for aphids, so they are not the cause of the huge release of sap over the past two years. The tree has been pruned, but there are too many branches overhanging the steps and decks, so more pruning will not solve the problem. Nor can we cut back the parts of the limbs that overhang the steps and decks, as that will just increase the flow of sap at the incision points. We have explored all options with Davey Tree to reduce the flow of sap and do not see any alternative but to remove this tree. During the renovation of our house, we employed every effort to preserve this tree, as we wanted it to be part of the permanent landscaping. Now, however, it is ruining our enjoyment of the front of our house and is hazardous. While "sap" sounds like a normal condition rather than a reason to remove a tree, the excessive amount of sap we are experiencing is far beyond reasonable. We hope that the members of the Beautification Committee will rind time to visit out house and experience the situation for themselves. I will work with Gina to make arrangements before the hearing on September 7. We will also submit further documentation to support our appeal before the hearing. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding our appeal. Sincerely, f William. L. Cunningham -Corso, Homeowner, 2714 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA. 94010 Enclosures: Arborist Report 7-13-2017, The Davey "free Expert Company 2 pages Application REJECTION LETTER dated July 26, 2017 — 1 page Protected Tree Removal Application dated 7-17-2017 — 9 pages Page 12 City ®f Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BLJ _RLnVG6 _AM phone: (650) 558-7330 o fax: (650) 696-7216 - t gborba@bul-lingame.org July 26, 2017 William L. Cunningham -Corso 2714 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REOVEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE CEDAR TREE @ 2714 EASTONDRI M—BURLINGAME, I have visited the site and inspected the tree and I am denying the removal of this Deodar Cedar at this time. The tree appears healthy with no visible signs of disease or structural issues. This tree was protected during all phases of the recent construction project and routinely monitored by the City Arborist to insure its survival. The tree was trimmed and maintained during the recent improvements to the property. Damage caused by the sap falling on the hardscape below does not meet the criteria for removal based on the City Ordinance 11.06. A qualified consulting arborist should be retained to inspect the tree and give and unbiased report on the steps to preserve the tree or document, with explanation, why mitigation measures may not work to save the tree and the tree must be removed. Because of the strong desire of the residents of Burlingame and the Burlingame City Council to safe guard all Protected Size trees within the City; I must make sure that every reasonable measure that could save the tree has been explored based on the City Urban Tree and Reforestation Ordinance 11.06 before approving removal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330. Sincere L}� Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 2704 Easton Drive 2705 Easton Drive 2710 Easton Drive 2711 Easton Drive 2718 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner 2721 Easton Drive 2723 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY CORPORATE OFFICE, 1500 N. MANTUA ST. P.O. BOX 5193, KENT, OHIO 44240-5193 TEL. 330-673-9511 KARL J. WARNKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT & C.E.O. Arborist Report 2714 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 On July 13, 2017 one (1) Deodar Cedar (Ce(lrus cleodura) located in the front of the property at 2714 Easton Dr., Burlingame, CA was visually inspected. The purpose of the visit was to inspect results from a recent aphid treatment and review sap damage. The Deodar Cedar is located at the front of the property along eastern property line adjacent to the structure. This tree has an approximate diameter of 30 inches at breast height (DBH). The trunk was visually inspected to detect the presence of decay; no significant decay observed. The tree has an asymmetrical canopy due to the proximity to the neighboring Cedar. Next the foliage and canopy was visually inspected for presence of insects or disease; moderate aphid evidence present. Significant sap deposits on the steps, patio, and handrails were also observed. The Davey Tree Expert Company began working with the owners at 2714 Easton Drive in January 2014. We were employed as a project arborist during the home renovation process. At that time we began providing care for the Deodar Cedar mentioned above. Tree protection measures were installed to manage concerns with stress from the construction efforts. A sub -surface fertilization was provided and frequent inspections from the project arborist. Since that time we have inspected the tree annually and provided services that include tree pruning and annual aphid treatments. Tree preservation has been the priority for this tree since we began providing services but currently there is no further treatment or pruning effort that would mitigate the current sap damage. Previous pruning efforts have elevated the canopy, resulting from entire limbs being removed back to the trunk. The location of the tree and current branch structure does not allow for heading pruning practices to provide relief. If anything, heading or reduction cuts would exacerbate the sap damage, Cedars pitch excessively from pruning cuts. The only permanent solution to manage the liability and damage concerns mentioned above is tree removal. It's my recommendation that the Deodar Cedar located at 2714 Easton Drive is removed and a suitable replacement tree be installed. Report Arborist IVE-9066A. The Davey Tree Expert Co. 1Z THE DAVEY TREE EXPERT COMPANY CORPORATE OFFICE. 1500 N. MANTUA ST., P.O. BOX 5193, KENT, OHIO 44240.5193 TEL. 330-673-9511 KARL J. WARNKE, CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT & C.E.O. Arborist Disclosure Statement Arborist are tree�specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk associated with living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborist cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within the trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborist cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. ZJz _-weI GURLIIJG; IJc /-- PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlin anteAvenue, Btttll►tgame, C/1 94010 I;atc: t,` 1 a- (630) S5b'-7330 y I 2d I � The undersigned owner off the property at: address: _ 2 'VGtSdb Vl Dr � \/ c, hereby applies for a peunit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: e0 a xy- CcAa.y Circumference: 3611 Location on Property— (} paV y {,kt- _r 1/1-fU-r l/LpLIS� Mork to be Performed: Removal j\ Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: �� ( �P �'� C -111s , tM� $ j L1 tr14 +C#,tA- I�Va f2CV IA�tG1�G . Is this Tree Removal Request Pat•t of a Building Project? YES y0 x dote: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with 575.00 to: City of Burlingame..1 dditiaual documentation maybe required to support reutovaL Attach airy doctltnentatiorr _you rtn!p Gave. (Example: Repor! front an Independent _ rborist, pictures of daniaged structures, letters of concern fi•nm neighbors, etc.). Owner(Print) VVilli'a ! L. Cviyl,ilnGtW,44 -COirSOPhone 310---765-03�11- Address (rfdifjerent than above) ----------------------------------------- EmailaU,KKiVZG]6wI AVCO.(b ----- —-------------------------------------- -------------- PER1YdIT - FOR OFFICE USH ®jvL y PaPment Rec. Pttvtnent Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (A+lunicipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges recei�t of a copy o� Chapter 1 I.OG, and agrees to comply with its provisions ane all conditions listed below; and That all appeals lave expired r. r been resolved. i OAN, NER SIGNATURE CiTY ARBORIST CONDITIOrNS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(.) (no fruit or nut trees) will be r•egaired anti may be planted attyrvbere on the property. If conditions lire nol stet within the allotted time as specifier! in Chapter 11. 06.090. (b) (5), paytttent of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be rerftnred. NQ ►eplttcenteut(s) regtth•etl. Contltct lire Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(,) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective anti! rftet Plawtitra Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERNIIT E\PiRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done bj, qualified tree professionals antl a copy of this permit mast be available at the job site at all tittres whets work is beat- petforttted. 0512015rcdsetl t FP;lL!tC Ld Built Li1Jl: 7-5-2017 Bill Cunningham -Corso 2714 Easton Drive, Burlingame, CA. Re: repair quote for Tree Sap damage Bill, The warranty forthe custom pavers and railings are VOIDED due to the sap damage over the past 3 years. We cannot honor the warranty claim. We will waive the recent cost to power -wash the railings and the steps and patio. This quote is good for 60 days. Work Scope: • Strip All pavers on steps and patio to prepare for sealant - $2,200 • Apply manufactures approved sealant — 2 coats $11,500. • Clean and re -stucco approximately 10 square feet of stucco $2,700 Sand and prep handrails for re -painting - $3,200 Repaint all handrails to match - $5,700 Power -wash the concrete walkways to remove sap and residual. No repair. Re -grout steps and pavers as required $2,200 Total: $27.500. Deposit $10,000 Balance on completion: $17,500 Other Terms: No warranty if result of tree sap or debris. Sincerely: Joe Romeo, Pacific Coast Builders 7 Date: .i?l i.lr• 65,,--5 i 2- 0 i Lti ;e1ClC„1;1 L'� •�:15 Ci 7.1 iili� 1'+.Ci lilt Z�� Bill Cunningham From: Baker, Brian <Brian.Baker@davey.com> Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:43 AM To: GBorba@burlingame.org Cc: Bill Cunningham Subject: 2714 Easton Drive On July 13, 2017 one (1) Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodaro) located in the front of the property at 2714 Easton Dr., Burlingame, CA was visually inspected. The purpose of the visit was to inspect results from a recent aphid treatment and review sap damage. The Deodar Cedar is located at the front of the property along eastern property line adjacent to the structure. This tree has an approximate diameter of 30 inches at breast height (DBH). The trunk was visually inspected to detect the presence of decay; no significant decay observed. The tree has an asymmetrical canopy due to the proximity to the neighboring Cedar. Next the foliage and canopy was visually inspected for presence of insects or disease; moderate aphid evidence present. Significant sap deposits on the steps, patio, and handrails were also observed. The Davey Tree Expert Company began working with the owners at 2714 Easton Drive in January 2014. We were employed as a project arborist during the home renovation process. At that time we began providing care for the Deodar Cedar mentioned above. Tree protection measures were installed to manage concerns with stress from the construction efforts. A sub -surface fertilization was provided and frequent inspections from the project arborist. Since that time we have inspected the tree annually and provided services that include tree pruning and annual aphid treatments. Tree preservation has been the priority for this tree since we began providing services but currently there is no further treatment or pruning effort that would mitigate the current sap damage. Previous pruning efforts have elevated the canopy, resulting from entire limbs being removed back to the trunk. The location of the tree and current branch structure does not allow for heading pruning practices to provide relief. If anything, heading or reduction cuts would exacerbate the sap damage, Cedars pitch excessively from pruning cuts. The only permanent solution to manage the liability and damage concerns mentioned above is tree removal. It's my recommendation that the Deodar Cedar located at 2714 Easton Drive is removed and a suitable replacement tree be installed. Please contact me directly to meet on site or with any questions at 650-799-6434. Best, Brian S. Baker I District Manager ISA Certified Arborist WE-9066A The Davey Tree Expert Company 0: 415.468.9180 ext. 8812 F: 415.468.9181 DAVET__,( .11/vI IlSOP1 0)nforaGw;virk;1 b)U Review Lis on Google! GoDD PAR AnqGaarrfra vvam: Bill Cunningham Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:01 PM To: 'GBorba@burlingame.org' Cc: 'Baker, Brian' Sufrajed: RE: 2714 Easton Drive - tree Removal Application Qttachmanfs: Survey.pdf, enlarged area.pdf Gina, Attached is the survey — I have circled the problem tree in the pdf. Thank you. Bill Cunningham -Corso President Cunningham Development Company, Inc. 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite #16 Palos Verdes Estates, CA. 90274 310-378-9944 Phone 310-378-9977 Fax 310-765-0347 Cell From: Bill Cunningham Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 201711:33 AM To: 'G Borba@burlingame.org'<GBorba@burlingame.org> Cc:'Baker, Brian' <Brian.Bal:er@davey.com> Subject: 2714 Easton Drive - tree Removal Application Gina, Enclosed please find our application. Brian Baker will send his report directly. May I ask how I can pay the $75 fee with my credit card? Thank you. Bill Cunningham -Corso President Cunningham Development Company, Inc. 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite #16 Palos Verdes Estates, CA. 90274 310-378-9944 Phone 310-378-9977 Fax 310-765-0347 Cell U, O%c -�o AE r/y Bill Cunningham From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:45 PM To: Bill Cunningham Subject: RE: 2714 Easton Drive - tree Removal Application El The only thing I did not receive is a picture of the tree. Can you please email me on as soon as you can, Thank you, Administrative Secretary Park and Recreation Department 850 GurlinRame Ave Burlin,ame, CA 94010 (650)550-7330 From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:bill@cunninghamdevco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 3:26 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Cc: Baker, Brian Subject: RE: 2714 Easton Drive - tree Removal Application Barb, Please add this exhibit to my application. Brian's report will be sent separately. Thank you. Bill Cunningham -Corso President Cunningham Development Company, Inc. 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite #16 Palos Verdes Estates, CA. 90274 310-378-9944 Phone 310-378-9977 Fax 310-765-0347 Cell From: Bill Cunningham Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:33 AM To:'GBorba@burlingame.org' <GBorba a burlinga1_ne.017> Cc: 'Baker, Brian' <Brian.Bakerfc davey.com> Subject: 2714 Easton Drive - tree Removal Application Gina, Enclosed please find our application. Brian Baker will send his report directly. May I ask how 1 can pay the $75 fee with my credit card? Thank you. Bill Cunningham -Corso President Cunningham Development Company, Inc. 75 Malaga Cove Plaza, Suite #16 Palos Verdes Estates, CA. 90274 310-378-9944 Phone 310-378-9977 Fax 310-765-0347 Cell 719 Go1O CunMac�ham From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:18 PM To: Bill Cunningham Subject: RE: 2714 Easton Drive - Middle Tree. (To the right of house) Thank you! Gina Borba Administrative Secretary Park and Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)558-7330 ---Original Message ----- From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:bill@cunninghamdevco.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 4:16 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: 2714 Easton Drive - Middle Tree. (To the right of house) Trees on left and right are on adjoining property. &�9 gg_ i i -7 DAVEYM At eenSoluttrnuforaGivivingWorid The Davey Tree Expert Company 1500 N. Mantua St. Kent, OH 44240 CUNNINGHAM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 30 ARAGON BLVD SAN MATEO, CA 94402-2314 1) Pay online at www.davey.com >- 2) Pay by phone at 1-855-224-6115 a 3) Mail in a check (please include 0 remittance stub) T Please contact your local office w regarding any service issues. For questions about this invoice, please Amount due: $555.00 Due date: August 24, 2016 Invoice date: July 25, 2016 Invoice number: 910358495 Account number: 3192542 The Davey Tree Expert Company P.O. Box 94532 Cleveland, OH 44101-4532 0003192542309103584950072520166000000005550033 DAVEY InVOIC@ Thank you for choosing Davey! ProtenSolulionsfora GwiuingWodd Customer Account number Invoice number Invoice date Payment due date CUNNINGHAM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 3192542 910358495 July 25, 2016 August 24, 2016 Current services Date of service Cost of service Sales tax (if applies) Service total BILL CUNNINGHAM 2714 EASTON DR, BURLWGAME, CA Aphid Treatment 07/22/2016 555.00 555.00 (Contract #44975420) Treat front Deodar Cedar Total amount due 555.00 Thank you for your business! Just Ask Us! Your Local Office Rate our experience: Have questions about our services? 131 INDUSTRIAL WAY y p q BRISBANE, CA 94005 www.davey.com/feedback Visit us online at www.davey.com (415) 468-9180 or call your local arborist Brian Baker at (415) 468-9180. i Page 1 of 1 r� DAVEY Invoice P)vwn Solutions fork G-owh7gWodd Amount Due $583.00 N m m r. N Customer Customer number Invoice number Invoice date Payment due date CUNNINGHAM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 3192542 911488581 July 10, 2017 August 09, 2017 Current services Date of service Cost of service Sales tax (if applies) Service total BILL CUNNINGHAM 2714 EASTON DR, BURLINGAME, CA Aphid Treatment 07/06/2017 583.00 583.00 (Contract #45289436) Treat front Deodar Cedar Total amount due 583.00 Thank you for your businessl Just Ask Usl Your Local Office Rate your experience: Have questions about our services? 1400 MISSION ROAD www.davey.com/feedback Visit us online at www.davey.com Soulh San Francisco, CA 94080 or call your local arborist (415) 468.9180 Brian Baker at (415) 468-9180. Page 1 of 1 DAVEY# - r Z PrvicenSolutionsfor-aGrowinsWodd z Z N The Davey Tree Expert Company 1500 N. Mantua St. A Kent, OH 44240 N FORWARDING SERVICE REQUESTED CUNNINGHAM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 30 ARAGON BLVD SAN MATEO, CA 94402-2314 1) Pay online at www.davey.com a 2) Pay by phone at 1-855-224-6115 of 3) Mail in a check w (please include remittance stub) Please contact your local office regarding any service issues. Amount Due: $583.00 Due Date: August 09, 2017 Invoice Date: July 10, 2017 Invoice Number: 911488581 Customer Number: 3192542 Mail Payment To: The Davey Tree Expert Company P.O. Box 94532 Cleveland, OH 44101-4532 '�I�I"Illl��lillll�lll"I�'I11'lll��l�ll'I��IIIllillll'lllllllil ��11'IIIII'Illlllll��lll�l��llll��lll�l�ll�llllr��l�ll��lll�'I 0003192542309114885818071020176000000005830050 EXHIBIT C City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 o fax: (650) 696-7216 i y -- • gborba@burlingame.or;7 -� July 26, 2017 William L. Cunningham -Corso 2714 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE CEDAR TREE @ 27I4 EASTONDR1VE — BURLINGAME I have visited the site and inspected the tree and I am denying the removal of this Deodar Cedar at this time. The tree appears healthy with no visible signs of disease or structural issues. This tree was protected during all phases of the recent construction project and routinely monitored by the City Arborist to insure its survival. The tree was trimmed and maintained during the recent improvements to the property. Damage caused by the sap falling on the hardscape below does not meet the criteria for removal based on the City Ordinance 11.06. A qualified consulting arborist should be retained to inspect the tree and give and unbiased report on the steps to preserve the tree or document, with explanation, why mitigation measures may not work to save the tree and the tree must be removed. Because of the strong desire of the residents of Burlingame and the Burlingame City Council to safe guard all Protected Size trees within the City; I must make sure that every reasonable measure that could save the tree has been explored based on the City Urban Tree and Reforestation Ordinance 11.06 before approving removal. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330. S inc�l� ��r e,� Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Property Owner 2704 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 2705 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner 2721 Easton Drive 2723 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner 2710 Easton Drive 2711 Easton Drive 2718 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 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 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 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 of private property. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (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 Commis- sion 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 re- quires a subdivision, variance, use permit, building permit EXHIBIT D or other approval or which involves excavation, landscap- ing, or constriction in the vicinity of a protected tree. (d) "Director" means 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. (g) "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 tree from 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 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.040 Emergencies. 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 re- moved or altered by order of the director or, if the director is unavailable, a responsible mernber 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 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (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 § 1 (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 or private prop- erty 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 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 of proposed site disturbances, and the loca- tion of all trees. The director shall determine if all pro- tected 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. 11.06.050 Subject to the replacement provisions of Section 11.06.090, 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 ap v'-view. . d) In reviewing applications, the director sha ive 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 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 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 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- foot radius of the property containing the tree(s) in ques- tion; (5) The number of trees the particular parcel can ade- quately support according to good arboricultural practices; (6) The effect tree removal would have on wind Pro - Mg noise and privacy; and The economic consequences and obligations of 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. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 237 I 11.06.080 i 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 (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 condomin= ium 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 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 238 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 frees, 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 § 1 (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 ordi- nance 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 Arbori- culture Standards. (Ord. 1470 § .1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998))