Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2012.03.01AGENDA BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION `- MARCH 1, 2012 @ 6:30 PM CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD — -Conference Room A I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. FROM THE FLOOR (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on a matter which is not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes.) V. OLD BUSINESS 1) Appeal Regarding the Approved Removal of One Black Acacia Tree (In the Easement Behind) 1408 De Soto Avenue 2) 33d Arbor Day Celebration — Wednesday, March 7, 2012 @ Cuernavaca Park @10:00 am 3) 2012 Landscape Award - Status VI. NEW BUSINESS 1) Publicizing Tree Policies in the City of Burlingame VII. REPORTS 1. Staff 2. Chairperson 3. Commissioners VHI. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting: April 5, 2012 NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7323 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 Beautification Commission regarding any item on `-- this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Ave during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone (650) 558-7330 Fax: (65.0) 696-7216 * Email: kharveyOburlingame.orq February 8, 2012 Mr. Brian Benn 1408 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Mr. & Mrs. F. Realyvasquez 1411 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL OF THE APPROVED REMOVAL OF ONE BLACK ACACIA TREE (IN THE EASEMENT) Due to an unexpected conflict for one of our Commissioners and another Commissioner needing to recuse herself from this item, the Beautification Commission was unable to obtain a quorum. This item was tabled and rescheduled for the March 1, 2012 meeting. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Should you wish to attend the March I' meeting to address the Commission regarding . this item, please note that the Commission meets at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, in Conference Room A, at 6:30 p.m. Sin ly, 1 � Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist CC: Property Owner 1412 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1415 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone (650) 558-7330 Fax: (650) 696-7216 * Email: kharvevAburlimame.orq March 5, 2012 Mr. Brian Benn 1408 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Mr. & Mrs. F. Realyvasquez 1411 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL OF THE APPROVED REMOVAL OF ONE BLACK ACACIA TREE (IN THE EASEMENT) The appeal scheduled for the March 1, 2012 Beautification Commission meeting has been withdrawn at the request of the appellants at 1411 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame. Therefore, the permit process will move forward and the permit will be issued to the applicants at 1408 De Soto Avenue for the removal of the above mentioned Black Acacia tree. The permit �-' will become effective immediately. Please feel free to contact our office at 650.558.7330 if you should have any questions. Sincerel , Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist ZI CC: Property Owner 1412 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1415 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 PARKS -Harvey, Karlene From: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:40 PM �. To: 'Mary L. Hunt'; 'Karen Dittman'; 'Hinckle Family'; 'soylala@aol.com'; 'rkirchner@hpsarch.com' Cc: PARKS/REC-Glomstad, Margaret; PARKS -Disco, Bob; 'kkarbor0476@yahoo.com'; 'brian.benn@enviro-rfs.com'; 'ferndogrv@yahoo.com' Subject: 1408 DeSoto Avenue - Appeal Reagarding the Approved Removal of a Black Acacia tree. Attachments: SCAN0932_000.pdf; SCAN0933_000.pdf.1408 DeSoto.pdf OW L .J m SCAN0932_000.pdf SCAN0933_OOO.pdf (43 KB) .1408 DeSoto.p... Hi, The appellants have made the decision to withdraw the appeal for the approval to remove the Black Acacia tree the rear easement of the above property. Following submittal of Mr. Realyvasquez's letter to our office, a corrected and amended arborist report from Kielty Arborist Services was submitted at the request of our office. The attached amended report also addresses new findings discovered during a second visit to the site by Mr. Kielty on February 2, 2012. Until receipt of the corrected/amended arborist report, it seemed appropriate to withhold the decision to withdraw the appeal. This item will be withdrawn from tomorrow night's agenda. The permit accepting the conditions had previously been signed by the applicant at 1408 DeSoto Avenue(i.e. after removal a 24" box replacement tree would be planted in the same general area of the removal, but on the private property at 1408 DeSoto Avenue). The permit process will now love forward and the permit will be issued to the applicant. The applicant will have 6 'N. os. to 1 year in which to conduct the work. Thanks, Karlene 1 Page 1 of 1 PARKS -Harvey, Karlene From: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:22 PM To: 'Fernando Realyvasquet Cc: PARKS -Disco, Bob; PARKS✓REC-Glomstad, Margaret Subject: RE: 1408 De Soto Thank you for your response. I will notify the Commission of your. decision. Sincerely, Karlene From: Fernando Realyvasquez [mailto:femdogrv@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 12:22 PM To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene Subject: Re: 1408 De Soto Hi Karlene, As we mentioned to you in our letter last week, My wife and I are withdrawing our appeal to the Beautification Committee. We longer have any interest in the Acacia tree located on the property of 1408 De Soto Drive. Fernando & Geraldine Realyvasquez From: "PARKS -Harvey, Karlene" <KHaey@burlingame.org> To: femdogrv@yahoo.com Cc: "PARKS -Disco, Bob" <BDisco@burlingame.org>; "PARKS/REC-Glomstad, Margaret" <mglomstad@burlingame. org> Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 9:43 AM Subject: FW: 1408 De Soto Please review the attached report and note new information regarding the tree on pg. 2, paragraph 2. Please call me before 3:00 pm tomorrow to let me know if you wish to go forward with the appeal or withdraw your appeal from this Thursday's meeting. Thanks, Karlene From: Kevin Kielty [mailto: kkarbor0476@yahoo.com ] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 4:14 PM To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene Cc: PARKS -Disco, Bob; Brian Benn Subject: Re: 1408 De Soto Karlene, Here is the revised report. On my visit on 2/2/12 a decayed portion of the trunk was exposed. This is the most up to date report. 2/29/2012 i Mr. & Mrs. F. Realyvasquez 1411 Vancouver Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Cell (6S0) 740-2 S83 ferndogrv@yahoo.com February 17, 2012 City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: APPEAL OF THE REMOVAL OF ONE BLACK ACACIA TREE ON THE PROPERTY BEHIND 1408 DE SOTO AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA. Attention: Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor, We no longer have any interest of the above said tree! When we attended the last Beautification Committee meeting on June 2, 2011, Mr. Benn provided the attached inspection reports from Kielty Arborist Services to the Beautification Committee and us. The letter (attachment 1) with Mr. Kielty's signature and his official seal has been modified to support Mr. Benn's arguments about the tree (attachment 2). Attachment 2 has clearly been modified from the original inspection report There are numerous inconsistencies in the two letters, which makes us feel that we can no longer continue this process without the true facts. Sincerely, Fernando Realyvasquez & Geraldine Realyvasquez L Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE# 0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-525-1464 June 2, 2011 Revised February 27, 2012 Mr. Brian Benn 1408 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1408 De Soto, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Benn, As requested on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 and again on Thursday, February 2, I visited the above site to inspect and provide a non- biased, professional opinion on a large Acacia tree. No bid for work will be provided for this tree. The tree has been topped repeatedly by the utilities company and your concern as to the future health and safety of this tree has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was not climbed for this inspection. The tree in question was located on a "Not- to -Scale" map provided by me. The tree was then measured for �-' diameter at 48 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality. The condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations are provided. Observations: The tree in question is a black acacia (Acacia melonexylon) with a diameter at breast height of 11.9 and 18.3 inches. The tree is located in the utilities easment in the eastern corner of the property. The vigor of the tree is good with normal shoot growth for the species. The height of the tree beneath the wires is 30 feet (neighbor's side), the non topped side is 45 feet tall. The overall crown spread is 45 feet. Acacia topped for utility line clearance 14-08 De Soto June 2, 2011 The repeated topping has caused heavy lateral limb growth that has become upright in an attempt to form new topps. The acacia has a recent history of limb loss. The overall condition rating of the acacia is 45 on a scale of 1 to 100. The black acacia is a poor species receiving a 30 percent species rating as documented in the Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The species classification and group assignment is the book used ball arborists when appraising trees Prior to my visit of February 2, 2012 the wooden fence was removed. The removal of the fence exposed a 11 inch wide by 10 inch high decayed area. The decayed area extends from the ground to the base of the poorly formed crotch. Summary: The black acacia is a rapid growing tree located below utilities conductors. The tree has poor form, the decay at the base and the constant topping for line clearance has reduced the trees form Poor crotch formation with included bark, common failure point. rating. The non topped section of the tree has become quite haeavy and the tree has grown more than 15 feet taller than trimmed portion of the tree. Limb failure is common from the rapid growing non topped portion of the tree. The codominant leaders with included bark often lead to entire tree failure or failure from one of the leaders. As the size of this tree increases the liklyhood of failure will increase. The newly discoverd decay has further comprimised the trees poor crotch formation increasing the trees chances of failure. The sunken area above the note pad is decayed. The possible causes of the decay is crown rot of an injury several years ago. Kielty Arbodst Services P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 TEL: 650-525-1464 • CELL: 650-515-9783 Kkarbor0476(&ya hoo.com 2 ''1 1408 De Soto June 2, 2011 Remove and replace the tree as future limb or leader is likley. Trimming the tree within ANSI standards cannot guarentee the saftey of the tree. Removal is the only method that will eliminate all hazards and liabilities associated with the tree. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A Kielty Arborist Services P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 TEL: 650-525-1464 • CELL: 650-515-9783 Kkarbor0476(cDyahoo.com ��1 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BYRIrktig ME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation@burling_ame_org y STAFF REPORT TO: Burlingame Beautification Commission DATE: February 2, 2012 FROM: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist SUBJECT: Request for Removal of Black Acacia in the Easement Behind 1408 De Soto Avenue BACKGROUND: The resident at 1408 De Soto Ave. has requested that the. Black Acacia in the easement behind his property be removed. This request for removal was approved, but was appealed to the Beautification Commission by the property owner at 1411 Vancouver Avenue. The Commission upheld the appeal at the June 2011 meeting. Since the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (11.06) does not address the issue of when an applicant can re -apply for the same permit, the applicant has chosen to bring this to the Commission again. The tree is growing directly behind the residents back fence, between utility wires and a utility pole. The Acacia tree is located in a utility easement that is not owned or maintained by the City. These easement trees are the responsibility of the homeowners as property lines typically end at the center of the easement. Since this is a protected size tree, a permit for removal is required as per the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. The Acacia tree has been reduced and topped to clear electrical lines and has poor structure with limbs growing at irregular angles. The tree has co -dominant leaders with included bark. The included bark is also visible in the canopy scaffold. The tree is growing under the drip line of another Acacia tree directly to the south. Blackwood Acacia trees are typically removed throughout the City because of their high rate of limb failure due to poor attachment, and because of root failure. An independent Arborist Report (attached) recommends removal and replacement of this tree to eliminate any future hazards. A report submitted by the appellant from Davey Tree Expert (attached) indicates the "Acacia has a flawed structure, co -dominant leaders with included bark"... and suggests "managing the tree with regular pruning every 3-4 years" ...to also "keep base clean of debris to manage root rot"... and that the tree "should be inspected regularly due to concerns of the species." P.G.&E.has indicated that this is not the ideal tree for this location and they have had to trim this tree on an annual basis instead of the preferred 3-4 year cycle. The branches and limbs near the wires and transformer are routinely pruned for clearance. Staff recommends this tree to be removed based on the poor structure of the tree as indicated above, and Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance section (1) the condition of the tree with respect to... danger of falling... and, interference with public utility service, (2) The necessity to remove the tree in order to construct any proposed improvements to allow economic enjoyment of the property, and (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring the tree to remain. RECOM MNDATIONS: Options available to the Commission: 1) Deny the appeal, and allow for removal based on the trees poor structure and this species high rate of limb failure based on the City's Arborist report, the independent Arborist report, Davey Tree Company's estimate, and on Chapter 11.06 of the City Ordinance. And alternatively include along with the required 1 - 24 inch box sized replacement tree, require a second 24 inch box tree planted adjacent to the first, in the same general area. 2) Uphold the appeal because the tree provides a screen for the utility pole. Attachments: Beautification Commission Meeting Minutes dated June 2, 2011; Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance; City Arborist Tree Evaluation and photos dated June 1, 2011; Kielty Arborist Services Arborist Report dated June 2, 2011; Davey Tree Expert Company Proposal dated May 18, 2011; and email dated December 16, 2011 from Joel Smith (P.G.&.E). Appeal correspondence dated December 28 and December 26, 2011; Arborist Approval of Removal dated December 15, 2012, and Permit Application submitted by Applicant dated November 7, 2011. "1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION CONUMSSION June 2, 2011 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 pm. by Chairperson C'...: McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Carney, Dittman, Hinckle, Hunt, and Wright Absent: Commissioner Labey Staff. Supervisor Disco and Administrative Secretary Harvey Guests: Brian Benn (1408 DeSoto Avenue) and Fernando and Geraldine Realyvasquez. (1411 Vancouver Avenue) MINUTES Minutes of the May 5, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted CORRESPONDENCE Letter and related correspondence from Mr. and Mrs. F. Realyvasquez of, 1411 Vancouver Avenue, appealing the permitted removal of a Black Acacia in the rear easement behind 1408 DeSoto Avenue. PUBLIC COND4ENT There were no public, comments. Order of the agenda was changed to accomriiodafethose in attendance for the pgblic.hearing. „ NEW BUSINESS Appeal Reeardhm the Approved Removal of One Black Acacia Tree (in the easement behind) 1408 DeSoto Avenue Supervisor Disco reviewed the Staff Report with the Commission and clarified thatAhe protected sized tree is located. in a utility easement; the easement is not .owned; by, the City and is. the maintenance responsibility of roperty owners on either side, typically to the center of the easement Approval was. granted to the property owner `- bf 1408 DeSoto Avenue because a site inspection conducted by Supervisor Disco revealed that the tree had been reduced and topped to clear electrical lines, has poor structure (limbs growing at irregular angles), has co -dominant leaders with included .bark, and that _Black Acacias have a high rate of limb failure due to poor attachment and or root failure. After receiving notification of the removal, the property owners at 1411 Vancouver Avenue appealed the decision because the tree provides a visual green screen around the utility pole and wires as viewed from their property at 1411 Vancouver Avenue. Commissioner Hunt stated she would recuse herself from this item because of her acquaintance with the appellant's brother. Commissioner Dittman asked for clarification regarding maintenance responsibility in easement's between properties. Supervisor Disco explained that non City owned easements are the maintenance responsibility of property owners on either side of the easement, typically to the center. Commissioner Dittman noted she saw a pink dot on the base of the tree and asked Supervisor Disco what that might indicate. Supervisor Disco responded that P.G.&E. routinely marks trees scheduled for trimming and/or removal. Chairperson McQuaide asked if Supervisor Disco's report had been made before• he had seen the: other reports from tree companies. Supervisor Disco stated that his report was done as part of the initial permit process; that the reports from the other companies were received later and submitted with the appeal from the property owner at 1411 Vancouver Avenue. Commissioner Carney asked if a replacement tree would be required. Supervisor Disco stated no, thatthe property has trees and it is: City policy that trees not be planted in utility easements. Chairperson McQuaide asked the age of the Black Acacia. Supervisor Disco responded approximately 20 years old or more. Commissioner Carney asked Supervisor Disco to -clarify that this tree is definitely a problem. Supervisor Disco responded that in his opinion the +--� is a problem because the tree has co -dominant limbs and leaders, has been topped :by P.G:& E. and has never A maintained Chairperson McQuaide opened public hearing and recognized the`- 6pplicant, Brian Benn of 1408 Desoto. Avenue. Aibuesl Renarding the Aua'royed R'Wdval`ofO ie Black Acacia Tree (in the easement behind) 1408 Desoto Avenue - (Coutd.) -� Mr. Benn, 1408 Desoto Avenue, submitted his report to the Commission stating he had applied for the .permit to remove the tree because the Black Acacia tree is an invasive tree, is in.a bad.and unsafe condition, and is preventing enjoyment and improvement of his property. adding liis'neigh ' -at 1412 DeSoto Avenue supports removal. Mr. Benn then submitted a detailed report and reviewed with the Commission. The report i.inchided information from the California Invasive Plant Council (with regard 'to the Black Acacia specie); picfl�res. (as viewed from both properfies)`of the tree'and utility pole id the' easement pichues"of the "unsafe condition" of the tree; reasons the tree is preventing enjoyment or improvement of his yard, i.e., 1) danger due to proximity of wires, 2) tree overhanging most of yard, 3) wife is allergic to Black Acacia, and 4).relandscaping cannot be considered because of root suckers and the large volume of debris "produced by the free: ' Mr. Benn stated the appellant from 1411 Vancouver submitted "proposals" from. tree `.companies, not "assessments"; .. and that one , company recommended "support systems, cables or braces, to manage a poor attachment". Mr. Benn concludedthat the 'proposals" failtd-address-the importanf points: 1) the potential cost to maintain and manage the tree, and 2) the potential for liability for damage from tree failure. Mr. Benn concluded that he maintains the trees'on his property: 2 Maple trees, 3 Tibouchinas, 1 massive Deodar Cedar, and 1 mature Yucca tree, but does not want to bear the safety liability_ of this tree or the cosl. -He added he wants all his landscaping do be nice and believes'both his property'anit''neighbor's property at 1411 Vancouver Avenue would benefit from the tree removal because both yards would receive more sun. CQifiintssiober 1-ghd le ` asked Mr: Berri if ,lie had.' spoke to ` a' landscaper;' 1Vii: Bens responded thaf he had.. Chairperson McQuaide asked if the Cedar tree dropped as much debris as.the Black Acacia;. Mr. Benn responded,. not as niucli litit has had aai' arborist'maiiitain the ` Cedar '.tree Ch i Mc 'de asked what . P.G.&8. F.,- .- auperson Q representati 'told liim ab A tare thee. Mr. Berri `respomed that P.G &E is concerned with growtfi near the high. Voltage liiies,'mAw the-%iievee part of the tree is i c&i the 1ov�►er'wattage lines, P.G.&1?. would nofremove or trim that poitionr' Chaff drill Wde`then reeo zed" el�drit Fernando Reaj .. "as uei, 7911.YancouverAveriue. 'Y Sn 4P rY►' Q Mr: Realyva*i:i staffed that when Mr. $sin first'appro'gched him •regarding the possible removal of the tree,. Mr. Benn was primarily concerned about his wife's allergies: He stated to Mr. Beam that he wouldneed to discuss the tree removal with his wife because the screen meant a lot to her. He was then surprised when notification of the proposed r666val was received because they had not had any further discussion'with their neighbor. Mr. Realyvasquea then submitted photos of the tree as seen from his back_ yard, stating.- . Thd4ixeen from this tree blocks the pole 'and the lines as viewed from his home. The tree had'not been an issue for the last 6 years R6oval of this tree would not eliminate the allergies because another Black Acacia is only 10 feet away. • Co -dominant limtis'are manageable and would be willing to split .the cost of maintenance with his neighbor. . -The tree should remain because it provides a screenfrom the poldlines and cab be made safe.: . - stated Mrs. Rea.yvasquez'stated she and her husband -believe everyone should be able to_enjoy their backyard and was sarprised how much of the tree is on her neighbor'. s side. P.G.&E. has always lopped off. the limbs- but the tree masks: the ugliness of the 'pole...She added that when she contacted Davey. Tree Company and- Mayne Tree Company she asked them to assess the tree, whether it should be maintained or removed. She did not inform them that this was part of .ari appeal because she wanted a ."clean" assessment.- She stated the co -dominant trunk was menioned in the. assessments *and was noted as a: flaw, but that cables or braces and.pruning and maintaining was recommended to make the tree safe. 2 Chairperson McQuaide closed the public hearing. �1 �/�/G4l 1_YCPa PP.G aVVaV �. Avenue — (Coutd.) Commissioner Hinkle stated that in addition to shifting the attention away from the pole, the tree .provides a big hit �. of green to the area She noted most of the trees on the property at 1408 DeSoto Avenue are situated in the front of the property. Chairperson McQuaide stated it is a big tree but not causing any damage to sidewalks or dripping on cars. The tree is a habitat for birds, but P.G.& E. has `unflatteringly" pruned the tree. She added that there are not many mature trees on Desoto Avenue and believes the tree would do well with proper pruning and care .on .a.,regular basis. Chairperson McQuaide added she wished the neighbors could cooperate more with each other to resolve the issue.. Commissioner Dittman stated that if the tree were removed, the view of the polellines would be bad from both homes. She noted that if the tree were pruned or lowered rather than removed, you would still see the.poles/lines. Commissioner Dittman asked if a replacement tree could be required. Supervisor Disco stated there were no replacement requirements because the tree is in the easement and the .property at 1408 DeSoto Avenue is well forested. Commissioner Carney stated she would like to see the neighbors work together to save the tree. Commissioner Dittman asked if the Commission's decision could be appealed to Council. Staff responded yes, that anyone could appeal the Commission's decision to.Council. Commissioner Wright thanked and complimented both property owners on their presentations, but agreed with Chairperson McQuaide that the tree could be pruned and maintained. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved to uphold.the appeal, because the tree provides a screen -om the utt7ity pole, but with the recommendation that the tree be maintained by mutual agreement of the '--property owners as recommended by an. independent arborist; seconded; Hinckle. Motion carried 5 in favor, I recused/Hunt, and I absent/Lahey. Administrative Secretary Harvey stated that the applicants, appellants, and adjacent properties would benotified in writing of the Commission's decision, and procedures to appeal this decision to Council would be included. OLD BUSINESS 2011 Landscape Award Selection Commissioner Dittman stated that the Committee reviewed all sites and all criteria had been met. Commissioners commented on each of the six sites nominated. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that Crosby A Gray be selected as the award recipient because of its consistency, and that it's calming, beautiful, and dignified plantings serve as a "greeter" to those entering Burlingame on the southern end of Burlingame; seconded, Hinckk The vote was split 3 - 3; motion failed Commissioner Hunt then moved that R Fornaio be selected as the award recipient because it's landscaping has been established for many years, it is consistently charming with an inviting- exterior, and makes the most with the area; seconded, Dittman. Motion carried. 4 in favor, 2 opposed, I absent/Lahey. Commissioner Wright stated she would notify artist, Dale Perkins, so he could begin his work. New Beautification Commission Meeting "Start Tirane" Q 6:30 PM Administrative Secretary Harvey reported that there was no opposition to the time change, that the public would be - ;fied through the City ENEWS, and that the time change would begin July 2011. R3 NEW BUSIMFM New Street Tree Inventory Summary � Supervisor Disco reported on the data collection of the 16,250 public trees in the City of Burlingame. e proj ect . A was. amatched grant provided by CAL -Fat and the data collected by ba*cy esource'� ►Mb'e*installed 'm'the new ._ online street tree management system. The presentation to Council by Davey Resource, scheduled for Monday nights Council inecting' was postponed unitila &turi meeting 2011 Broadway Pet Parade Participation (September) - Commissioner Hinkle is reviewing costume possibilities for the Commission to participate in this year's parade and will report back to the ConUmsion 'at th6 ficbd scheduled meeting. Consider Cancellation otJuly l.161'1'Mie E Due to lack' of bukiness and ,Yac,;tfion!g6i!M'-e's,:'it was A*'co'n-sm.'' of the Commission that the :Ju, ly 7 meeting be cancelled and the next regularly scheduled meeting would be held on August 4,.2011 at 6:30 pm. REP61tTS-Staif Nojid; Commissioner Wjjaht Commisssioner Wright stated she noticed that some nice new shrubs and. bushes had been planted on the eastside of California Drive (south of Broadway).. Commissioliii Dittman Commissioner Dittman reported'she had sent a condolence card' 6.nIiA&ofthe commissionto I)alePcrkins in the recent passing of his wife, Evie. Connnissioner Dittman asked Supervisor Disco if the required'tree replacement on the 1'800 block of Eako'n would be planted. Supervisor Disco responded that the City Attorney had confirmed that the, time for appeal. W expired. be ..p cr strip per the 4� for the:p�� 'd and "Ahtd. the replacement tree is as COMMissibi,g: Commissioner Efludde'. Commissioner Hinckle shoWed the Commission a Street Sweeping Pap and schedule,. for street sweeping in the City of B sid6nef Hinckle" r6po'rfed ih6 is. inyeiijifi�j the' possibility Of the City of Burlingame consider resi -niovihg,d&s pairiced on the street, like some othe'"r-cities do, for sift"t','et sweeping purposes. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. LI 4 MR City of Burlingame Chapter 11.06 URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE "PROTECTION 11.06.010 Purpose and intent 11.06.020 Deftitions. 11.06.030 Nomination and listing of ptroteeted trees. 11.06.040 ' EmeMencies. 11.06.050 ProliWtions and proteetiorts. 11.06.060 NotirimVid permits requi-t-ed'for removal or work significantly affecting prtitedbl trees. 11.06.070 Det:i uft by director. 11.06.080 Appl: ' 11.06►090 Tf6e requirements and rellbetsta#ion. 11.06.100 p6mi y. 11.06.01-0 Purpose arid ifu"tent The City of SOON4me is:. endowed. and forested -with a varies. OTC ealtl.y and vAuftble trees which must -be protected and preserved. The preservation of thea'. tree sssential to.the health, welfare and quty`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 regiiiretment - 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 oT- 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); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1470 § 1; September 9,1992). (Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), Amended, 07/20/1998) 11.06.020 Definitions. Terms used in this chapter shall be defined as follows: (a) "Commission" means the Beautification Commission of the City of Burlinsame. - (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 whic..h 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 recoeni-zed' ornamentAl tret and shall exclude fruit, citrus, or nut -bearing trees. ,00Af) "Protected tree" means:' (1) Any tree with a circumference of 48 inches or more when measured 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 linportance to -the public=diit'to-its unusual appearance, location, historical sienificance 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) "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, extraction killing bv' s ra `W: girdling �' d-, P Y o. t� g. or any -other means. (Ord: 1057 § 1 (part); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1470 § 1; September 9, 1992, Ord. 1492 § 1; September 20, 1993). - (Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), Amended, 07/2011998) 11.06.030 Nomination and listing of protected trees. Nomination for protected tree status under Section 11.06.020(i)(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 (11.06) 1 January ' 1999 City of Burlingame distribution to interested citizens. The city council may reniove'a designated tree from the list upon its own motion or upon request:. Requests for such aetionIay `originate in the same manner as nominati6iii for protected tree status. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1476 § 1 September 9 1992): (Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), Amended, OV20/1998) 11.06.040 Emergedcies. 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'remove'd or altered by order of the director or, if the directoris 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. . 101.7 § .1. (part); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1470 § l;,teptember 9, 1992). (Ork 1598 & I (part), Amended, 07120/1908) 11.0.050: Prohibitions and protections. 4a) No -protected tree shall be` it Lived from any parcel without a permit except as pmvided 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 arall times; ` , (2) Protected trees that have -been damaged or destroyed by conswction shall be replaced or the city shall be reimbursed, as provided i Section 11.06.090;.. (3). Chemicals or 'other do materials shall not be stored within the drip line of protected trees; . (4) Drains shah be provided 15'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); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1470 § 1; September.9, 1992). - (Ord. 1598 § I (part), Amended, 07/20/1998) 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 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 thins, 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 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. (t) Removal or pruning 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 bf buildings or structwres 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 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 usr:permit, or special permit under Title 25 of this code. The notice and appeal provisions of sections 11.06.070 and 1 11.06.08.0 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 for tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling; proximity January 1999 (11.06) 2 City of Burlingame . to existing or proposed structures, yards, hearing to the appellant and applicant at least driveways and other trees; and interference with five days priorthereto. public utility services; . The determination of the commission shall (2) The necessity to remove the tree(s) in become final and conclusive in ten days if no order to construct any proposed improvements appeal is filed. • Destruction, removal or other to allow economic enjoyment of the property; work on a protected tree shall not commence (3) The topography of the land and the until after the ten-day period has passed, .or, if effect of the removal of the tree(s) on erosion; any appeal is -filed, until the decision of the city soil retention; and diversion or increased flow of council. During the period between the action surface waters; of the commission and the end of the ten-day, (4) The number of trees existing in the appeal period,' any .person may appeal such neighborhood on improved property and the action to the city council. Such appeal shall be effect the removal would have on the in writing and shall be filed with the city clerk. established standard of the area and property During the same period the city council, on its value. Neighborhood is defined as the area own motion, - may suspend the order of *the within a 300-foot radius of the property commission for the purpose of reviewing the containing the tree(s) in question; action of the commission. A permit shall ' be (5) The number of trees the particular valid for six months after the date it is issued. parcel can adequately support according to good Under exceptional circumstances, the dir6etor arboricultural practices; may issue one six-month extension. (Ord. 4470 (6) The effect tree removal would have on § 1; September 9, 1992). wind protection;=noise and privacy; and (Ord. 1598 §. 1 (part), Amended, 07/20/1998) (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. (Ord. 11.06.090 Tree requirements and _ ..., 1057 § 3 (part); December 15, 1975, Ord. 1470 reforestation. § 1; .`September 9, 1992, Ord. 1492 § 2; (a) Whenever the _- development or Septenther 20, .1993), redevelopment of a single family home, duplex, (Ord. 1.1603 § 9; Amended, 09/23/1998; Ord.apartment house or condominium results in any 1598 §A (party,.Amended, 07/20/1998) increase in lot coverage or habitable space (as defined by.: Chapter 25 of this code), the 11.06.070 Decision by director. property shall be required to meet the following A decision shall be rendered by the director requirements: for each application. if an application is (1) One landscape tree for every 1000 approved, it shall include replacement square feet of lot coverage or habitable space for conditions in- accordance with Section single family homes or duplexes; 11.06.090. The director shall give written (2) One landscape tree for every 2000 notification of the decision to the applicant and square feet of lot coverage for apartment houses all property owners within 100 feet of the or condominiums. property containing the tree(s) in question, and Lot coverage and habitable space shall include a copy of the city Urban Reforestation include both existing and new construction. The and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 11.06). director shall determine the number of existing (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part); December 15, 1975, Ord. trees which are of an acceptable size, speciel 1470 § 1; September 9, 1992). and location to be counted toward this (Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), Amended, 07/20/1998) requirement. Any additional trees which are required shall meet the standards for 11.06.080 Appeal. replacement trees set forth in subsection (b) Any person may appeal the decision of the below. director to the commission by filing an appeal in (b) Permits for removal of protected tree(s) writing with the director no later than 5:00 p.m. shall include replanting conditions with the of the tenth calendar day after the decision. The following guidelines: director shall set the matter for review by the (1) Replacement shall- be three 15-gallon commission at its next regular meeting and size, one 24-inch box size, or one 36-inch box provide notice by mail of the commission size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed as (11.06) 3 January 1999 City of Burlingame u determined below. (2) Any tree removed without a valid ' permit shall . be replaced by two 24-inch bcyk size, or two 36-inch box size landscape trees foi 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 itquiremtnts 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 vahte = of the tree(s) removed:.. (5) If replacement trees; as designated in subsection (b)(1) or (2) above, as applicable,-k.. 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 upop for public tree. planting: (Ord..1470 § 1.; September 9, 1992, Ord.1492 § 3; September 20, 1993). (Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), Amended, 67/20/1999) 11.06.106 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; September 9,1992).; (Ord. 1508 § 1 (part), Amended, 0720/1.998) January 1999 (11.06)4 CITY OF BURLINGAME TREE EVALUATION Person Reporting: Bob Disco Details of Tree: Genus: Acacia Species: melanoxylon Common Name: Blackwood acacia Approx.-Age: 20-30 Height 40-60' DBH: 58" Tree Location: 1408 Desoto Date June 1; 2011 Title: Park Supervisor 1.. Assignment Homeowner called and requested removal of easement tree. 2. Observations: Structural Defects: Tree has been topped for to clear overhead wires. Tree also has included bark, poor structure, co -dominant leader and irregular limbs. Soil/Root Condition: Growing in an open easement near fence and power pole. Injuries: Wound from past pruning cuts History of tree/site: None available since it is growing in an easement and not a City tree. 3. Analysis / Testing: All analysis and testing were visual observations. Conclusions: This tree has poor structure, co-domiriate leader and Is growing between power lines. Typical request for removal of black acacias are granted due to their brittle limbs and high limb failure. This Is an easement tree which is not City owned or maintained; the tree was probably a volunteer from surrounding acacias. Parts of the tree has been topped and reduced around utility wires. leaving stub cuts and limbs growing at right angles; other half of tree has grown without maintenance and is close to 60ft. Approve removal of tree at home owners request. W l ' c �` � '� }�'k 1LV f t• f ^ . q i i .i 1 t F - t 4 i a i , 1 t ; lYtl. . d .-=r•<; ro. x`}.:..aaa t s..F�: �4 . LT,� rt i. .. ,. .-e ,. .. f .. ;, w� „ }+ x 2'"'['.,, 'k'fi s"µ - R 3 J •tf r l " iL" a k,� H'!h _,h � 3 .z � ,�,.: ttlr'SA. � e Y 554 i,t. 1 V• k; - _. �' ) a ; t F �h+J tF ry f l�I it ftr S4� 4 L F + Cs '� L,� s,y y +t „ ♦ r tt is ti J �F 4 ty-rjrt7.: r lr Rey ;..♦ ( 4x \ty C ) > itikr l+., j - ��.Mm 4 - 1 - x .-y. rµ r? ' fi t• t f X .� 5 ft t [1 s,a t�+•'+3:;•: ��, +3� SFr t t. + C _ t ti 6Ja iy <�Tr' �+r yR a .. t .. � - '} ° 4 t = 1 1 •�' G �'P ,{ � 1.�R d a l t " ; a '• 3 11,�,� � �inP a t r ��� • ` z v t b ti _\ Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE# 0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-525-1464 June 2, 2011 Mr. Brian Benn 1408 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 166 Olive Hill Road, Woodside, CA Dear Mr. Benn, As requested on Wednesday, June 1, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on a large Acacia tree. The tree has been topped repeatedly by the utilities company and your concern as to the future health and safety of this tree has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground, the tree was not climbed for this inspection. The tree in question was located on a "Not- to -Scale" map provided by me. The tree was then measured for diameter at 48 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. Observations: The tree in question is a black acacia (Acacia melonexylon) with a diameter at breast height of 11.9 and 18.3 inches. The tree is located in the utilities easment in the eastern corner of the property. The vigor of the tree is good with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of the acacia is very poor with codominant leaders at the base with a poor crote.h formation and included bark. Acacia topped for utility line clearance �i lf .�i:.mv -'r- .. i.' .: t 1. .,.'C �• :iS' �^. .. � `• R t Sw �pk fF a r rr+.rw,......:, ssill,y 1408 De Soto June 2, 2011 The repeated topping has caused heavy lateral growth theat has become upright in an attemt to form new topps. The acacia has a history of limb loss. Summary: The black acacia is a rapid growing tree located below utilities conductors. The tree has poor form and the constant topping for line clearance has reduced the trees form rating. The non topped section of the tree has become quite haeavy and has grown more than 15 feet taller than trimmed portion of the tree. Limb failure is common from the rapid growing non topped portion of the tree. Poor crotch formation.with-included,bark, common failure point. The codominant leaders with included bark often lead to entire tree failur or failure from on of the leaders. As the size of tis tree increases the liklyhood of failure will icrease. Remove and replace the tree as future limb or leader is likley. Trimming the tree within ANSI standards cannot guarentee the saftey of the tree. Removal is the only method that will eliminate �. all hazards and liabilities associated with the tree. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, So�'1ETY OF 4 o�P�ro��N KI FAT �0�� Kevin R. Kielty z c Certified Arborist WE#04 A z No.1NE-p476A rn CFRt/FI ED P��O� Arborist Services P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 TEL: 650-525-1464 • CELL: 650-515,9783 Kkarbor04760-)vahoo. com 2 1Y 1 4 ro7 � A L r v t The Davey Tree Expert Company 131 Industrial Way AVL Brisbane, CA 94005 Phone: 415-468-9180 Fax: (415) 468-9181 s .Email: Brian.Baker@davey.com Prrnletz Sohitimfora Growtng l iyd Contractor's State License #69400.1 ` Clieni Proposal Information Fernando Realyvasquez Proposal #: 20030890-0000004 Geraldine Account #: 1905348 5/18/2011 1411 Vancouver Ave Mobile: (650) 740-2583 Burlingame, CA 94010-5535 Email: c,_realy@yahoo.com Tree Pruning and Surgery ❑ Tree Pruning Prune rear Yalley Oak; remove deadwood and reduce long ends to manage branch end weight. This oak has a history of clearance pruning from the nearby utility lines, this pruning has caused the canopy to develop an asymmetrical form. It is recommended to maintain this tree by regular pruning, every 3-4 years, to manage long ends and issues related to end weight. Currently the tree appears to be in fair health, displaying typical leave size, color, and density per the species. There are the presence of water sprouts along the larger scaffolding limbs which is believed to be a response to -the line clearance pruning. There is also the presence of brown leaves and Hp die -back this is believed to be associated with the abnormal seasonal patterns and is not problematic at this stage. There is no strong evidence to deem this tree hazardous. Tree Pruning Prune rear Blackwood Acacia; remove deadwood, thin canopy, reduce long ends, andprovide line clearance. This Acacia has a flawed structure, co -dominant leaders with included bark Often support systems, cables or braces, are installed to manage a poor attachment. I would suggest managing this tree with regular, proper pruning every 3-4 years. The canopy is very asymmetrical due to it's location in relationship to the overhead utility lines. The foliage shows no evidence of disease or pest. concerns. I would also suggest keeping the base of the tree clear of leaf litter and organic debris to manage issues with basal root rot which may contribute to premature tree failure. This tree does not appear to be an imminent hazard, however should be inspected regularly due to . concerns_ with.the.species. ❑ Tree Pruning Reduce end weight on the fractured limb on the front Deodor Cedar. Free and Shrub Fertilization ❑ Fertilize w/ Arbor GrreenPRO (1 Yr) Sub -surface fertilize front Deodor Cedar with Arbor Green Pro (30-I0-7) ❑ Yes, please schedule the services marked above. No Deposit required upon acceptance Credit Card #: (or) Check # $ Deposit Amt. Required Exp. Date $ Deposited Name as it appears on card: Upon completion of work, please charge balance to credit card ❑ Yes ❑ No $765.00 $850.00 $205.00 $195.00 EPTANCE OF PROPOSAL: The above prices and conditions are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do this work as specified. I am familiar J agree to the terms and conditions appended to this form. All deletions have been noted. I understand that once accepted, this proposal _jtes a binding contract. Your Arborlst: Brian Baker Authorizing Signature Date Page 1 of 1 PARKS -Disco, Bob From: Smith, Joel P [JPSr@pge.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 4.35 PM To: PARKS -Disco, Bob Subject: Non -preferred tree species; 1408 De Soto, Burlingame Hello Bob, Per your request, I reviewed the Black Acacia and spoke with the resident at 1408 De Soto, Burlingame. Due to the presence of our overhead high -voltage and secondary electrical conductors, it is my opinion that this tree is not a an ideal fit for this location in regard to industry best practices. At times, we have needed to trim this tree on an annual basis. Our preferred cycle is three to four years or greater. I informed resident that PG&E's tree crews are available to clear a 10 foot safety buffer around our high -voltage facilities to allow his own contractor to safely complete the removal. The cost of this "contractor assist" trim would be covered by PG&E. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if the customer intends to move forward with plans to remove the tree in question. Thank you, Joel Smith Vegetation Management - Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Francisco and San Mateo Counties Office 650.985.5710 * Internal 8.578.5710 1/23/2012 S ,."N City .of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone (650) 558-7330 Fax:.165.0) 696-7216 * Email: kharvev0burlingame.ora December 28, 2011 Brian Benn 1408 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL REGARDING THE APPROVED REMOVAL OF ONE BLACK ACACIA TREE (IN THE EASEMENT) BEHIND 1408 DESOTO AVENUE- BURLINGAME We. are in receipt 'of the enclosed letter from the property owner (on the other side of the rear easement) appealing the approval to remove the Black Acacia tree in the rear easement behind your properties. The appeal will be forwarded to the Burlingame Beautification. Commission and a hearing will be scheduled -for -the meeting on Thursday, February 2, 2012. `.- The Beautification Commission meets at 6:30. PM at City -Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, (Conference Room A) should you wish to attend and address the Commission regarding this matter. The appellant 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, r Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Enclosures CC: Mr. & Mrs. F. Realyvasquez Property Owner Property Owner 1.411 Vancouver Avenue 1415 Vancouver Avenue 1412 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 -'N, Mr. & Mrs. F. Realyvasquez 1411 Vancouver Avenue L Burlingame, CA 94010 Cell (650) 740-2583 ferndogrv@yahoo.com December 26, 2011 City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Oppose Removal of Acacia Tree in Easement between 1411 Vancouver Avenue and 1408 De Soto Avenue, Burlingame Attention: Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor This letter is to oppose the permit for the removal of the Black Acacia tree located in the easement between 1411 Vancouver Avenue and 1408 De Soto Avenue. We have several reasons for wanting the tree to remain and have had it assessed by two separate professional arborists. In both cases, independent of each other, they have recommended maintenance and in their opinions there is no reason to have the tree removed. Enclosed are copies of the assessments from Davey Tree Expert Company and Mayne Tree Expert Company. In addition to their recommendations, we would like it to be known that we have lived in our home for the past seven years and this tree has not been an issue. The Black Acacia in question provides a visual diversion for the massive utility pole, located in the easement directly behind our property. If the tree is removed, the utility pole and wires will decrease the value of our property and our quality of life. In addition to masking the utility pole, the tree also provides a great deal of privacy between our backyard and the backyard of the property at 1408 De Soto. We take great pride in maintaining our property and we spend a majority of our time in our backyard. On May 7, 2011, Mr. Benn, the resident at 1408 De Soto Avenue, approached me to discuss his intent to replace his existing fence and landscape his backyard. It was during this conversation that he stated his reason for possibly having the tree removed was due to his wife being allergic to the tree. Unfortunately, there are number of Black Acacias located on other properties adjacent to both of our properties. On May 12, 2011, we received a letter from the city stating a permit would be issued for the removal of the tree, pending any opposition. We formally opposed and the issue went to the Beautification Committee for a decision. On June 2, 2011, the Beautification Committee voted in favor of not removing the tree. As noted above, my wife and I take great pride in the conservation of our property. Burlingame has been our home for over 15 years and we have always felt that the preservation of a healthy tree is important not only to the environment, but the city itself. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Your consideration in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Fernando Realyvasquez Geraldine Realyvasquez Attachments: Davey Tree Expert Company Mayne Tree Expert Company w "1 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT L-' 850 B URLINGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: ADDRESS: 1408 De Soto Avenue, Burlingame (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1 /3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES Black Acacia CIRCUMFERENCE 57" LOCATION ON PROPERTY ESE corner of backyard under PG&E power lines WORK TO BE PERFORMED removal REASON WORK IS NECESSARY safety hazard; see certified arborist report and attached comments (Please use back ofform for additional comments.) NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) OWNER (Print) Brian Benn MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A 75.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME ADDRESS 1408 De Soto Avenue, Burlingame Attaeh any supporting documentation you may have (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist). PHONE (650) 342-7962 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- �- PERMIT 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 (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant admowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 1-1.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below- and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER zz&: CITY ARBORIST PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR CONDITIONS: v1 �� DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE 24 - inch box size landscape tree c 1 be required and may be`� planted If conditions are not met within ���/ _ JL_-_n...._.�..e-___ ------_c_�s__ e'--.z--- » Amon__.—re04A (/li for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. 6ztz C2-- Vh.e� NO replacement(s)'required Contact the Parks Division. at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) completed This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work isleingperformed .-*N City -of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone (650) 558-7330 Fax:. (65.0) 696-7216 * Email: kharvevCd)burlinaame.ora December 15, 2011 Brian Benn 1408 De Soto Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE BLACKACACIA TREE Q 1408 DE SOTO - BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned tree in the utility easement behind the property at the above address and have made the following determination: 1) The Black Acacia tree has co -dominant leader with embedded. or included bark, a condition that will not improve and only get worse. 2) The tree is, growing under utility lines and as a result, has poor structure with heavy lateral limbs. 3) Black Acacias are poor species due to poor growth habits, structure, and high.potential for failure. 4) One 24-4nch box size landscape tree (no fruit or nut trees) will be required as a replacement tree in the same general area but on the private property. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal .of the tree subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self addressed envelope BEFORE -December 28, 2011. Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our office by December 28, 2011 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and .Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter IL 06). The permit will be issued on December 28, 2011, if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, c"5) ) Bob Disco Parks Supervisor bd/kh CC: Properly Owner Property Owner Property Owner. 1412 De Soto Ave. 1411 Vancouver Ave: .1415 Vancouver Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 .•*N