HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2006.01.05AGENDA
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
JANUARY 5, 2006
5: 30 P.M.
CITYHALL
Conference Room A - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
B URLINGAME, CA
L ROLL CALL
H. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 1, 2005 COMMISSION MEETING
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. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive
2. Beautification Commission Meeting Time
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1. Appeal of the Denial to Remove a Protected Deodar Cedar Tree @ 1480 Vancouver
2. Arbor Day — Tuesday, March 71h @ Bayside Park
VH REPORTS
1. Staff
2. Chairperson
3. Commissioners
DATE: December 27, 2005
�-- TO: Beautification Commission
FROM: Steven Porter — City Arborist
RE: Appeal of the Denial to Remove a Protected Deodar Cedar Tree @ 1480 Vancouver Ave.
On 6/8/05 a permit application was submitted for the removal of a protected Deodar Cedar tree by
Mr. Robert Gilson, property owner of 1480 Vancouver Ave. The Cedar tree has a diameter of
45.9 inches and is approximately 50+ years old. The reason cited for the removal was, "Tree is
compromised, will start to fail". This is a quote from an Arborist Report dated 4/11/05 prepared by
Mayne Tree Service. The report was prepared for Mr. James Chu, architect for Mr. Gilson's new
house project at the above address.
On 6115105 the above permit application was denied. Reasons for the denial were based on an
onsite inspection conducted by me. I determined that the tree was: "... a healthy, mature, and
structurally sound specimen and that the criteria used to grant removal had not been met".
I do not think that the Mayne Tree report substantiates removal of this tree. Nowhere in the report
is removal of the tree indicated. The report does give the tree a 70% condition rating but also
says, "Trees with ratings below 70% are candidates for removal, but this does not mean that
they may not remain". The report does indicate that "the tree has been cut for line clearance"
which is true. In my opinion, the tree has not been pruned to any extreme degree. The report also
indicates that the limbs of the tree are "heavy and brittle". It is my opinion that this condition can
be easily mitigated with proper pruning of the tree. The report goes on to state that "safety of the
tree has been compromised". This comment is associated with the above issue of the "heavy and
brittle limbs" which also can be mitigated with proper pruning of the tree. Finally, the report
states that, "the tree is mature and will start to fail". This comment could be used for any living
thing that has reached maturity, but I do not believe removal is necessarily warranted in this case.
On 10/13/05, Mr. Gilson submitted a second Tree Removal Permit Application. Reasons cited for
the removal were, "Neighbors hate the tree and it is dangerous to them and new existing homes".
This application was again denied for the same reasons I had stated above for the first application.
This second permit application was accompanied with an arborist report from Mr. Ralph
Osterling. This report appears to reiterate the same comments in the Mayne Tree report which in
my opinion, does not warrant removal of this tree. Mr. Osterling's report assumes that the
comments in the Mayne Tree report are a recommendation for removal. I disagree. Again I quote
the Mayne Tree report; "Trees below a 70% rating are candidates for removal, but this does not
mean that they may not remain".
I do respect the opinions in both of the arborist reports, although I do not agree that removal
should be the chosen option for this mature tree. I believe that if proper tree protection is
maintained during construction, and that proper tree trimming and maintenance is done, this tree
has the potential of surviving to continue to be an asset to the community for many years to come.
November 30. 2005
Randy Schwartz
Burlingame Park and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Appeal of tree removal decision at 1480 Vancouver.
.near. Randy Schwartz,
We own the property at 1480 Vancouver Avenue and requested a tree removal permit for
a Deodar Cedar at this site. Our request was supported by a report from Mayne Free
Service stating that the tree was wire cut and a condition 70. We also submitted a letter
from Ralph Osterling recommending removal of the tree. The, tree is heavy, brittle, at the
end of its life and is unsightly. This Deodar Cedar is very messy and exudes a
tremendous amount of pollen- Our request to remove this tree was denied by Steve
Porter. We now would like to appeal this decision to the Parr and Recreation
Commission.
Please advise us of how to proceed with this appeal.
Ts truly,
Robert & Cindy Gilson
30 Woodgate court
Hillsborough, CA 94010
ON
"1
"\
/�.. PARKS & RECREA.TION DEP R� WI-ENT�BY RLiN4AME pi•.
850 Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame. California 94010-2899 m
Telephone (650) 558- ,300 - Parks / Trees (650) 555-73330
�4ppRATCD rax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: recreation@ burlincame.ora
October 20. 2005
Robert & Cynthia Gilson
1480 Vancouver Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE. REOVEST FOP. REMOVAL OF ONE C-77DAR TREE a,, 1480 VA.NCOUVER AJ E. -
BURLEVGAME
I reviewed your request for the removal of one Cedar tree in the back vard at the above address, and have made
the following determination:
1) The Cedar tree is a healthy, mature, structurally sound specimen.
2) With proper pruning and maintenance, this tree could live another 40-50 v_ ears and continue
to be an asset to the neighborhood.
3) The criteria used to granting removal has not been met.
4) Therefore, the application has been denied.
For further consideration of this decision you may appeal this decision in writing to the Burlingame Beautification
Commission, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame. Any documentation must be received at our office by
November 7, 2005.
Our office may be contacted at (650) :458-7330 if you should have any questions.
Sincerely,
F
Steven Porter
City, Arborist - (ISA 4WC-3073)
SP!kh
fIr
Herbert & Shwu Ling Wei Dolores B. Burnet✓ Thomas Eastham
1470 Vancouver Avenue 1477 Bernal Avenue 1473 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, rA 94010
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT APPLICATION
PAPM & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
850 BURLINGAME AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
(650) 558-7330
The undersigned owner of the property at:
ADDRESS:
(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 CIRCUMFERENCE�-
LOCATION ON PROPERTY r
WORK TO BE PERFORMED
REASON WORK IS NECESSARY I-F
�`�.� � ✓tom � r.
(please use back ofform for additional comments)
NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) OWNER(Print)
MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A r
S50.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLII\TGAME ADDRESS
Arch am ley Re oo�nomanIndetation endentArboristou may )e (ErPHONE
--- ***'4-/ -0x------------------------------------------- ==-L------� == = - =-----
PERNUT
This permit allows the apulicant 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 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all
conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved.
OWNER
CITY ARBORIST
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) will be required and may be
planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within
the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080, payment ot"$400
for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required.
DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE
NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at
(650) 558- 7330 when removal(s) completed
PERMIT EXPIRES
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 is being performed
gol
Ratph Oste ling Consultan S, EnC.
1654E Borei Puce, Suite 04
S ar. Mateo, CAL L' 9440", -3;4DW
September 19, 2005
Inc. Cir?dv L.D
Gilson Development
30 Woodgate Court
Hillsborough, CA. 94010
RE: 1480 Vancouver, Durlinaame
Dear Ms. Gilson:
m2F•: OUIUi idlYG
21 G 0 NFaT M1 Ta
to5CBQRKPM
SURMOME
in response tc our meeting and our telephone conversations, i have prepared the
following professional opinion regarding the large deodar (tree #15 in the Mayne
Report) located on the rear of your property. The following are germane:
1. In the April 11, 2005 Report prepared by Mayne Tree Service, Mr.
Huntington rated the Condition at 70. He aiso described the past pruning
and heavy, brittle nature of the branches. Very importantly he states "tree
is mature and will star to faii."
The evaluation of Condition 70 makes this tree borderline as a removal
candidate based on his evaluation and combined with the comments in
th t ap^"iit `+ nHp ! Q vG'IblG r lJpears this tree, based' on his evaluation, should be
.
removed.
3. I agree with the Mayne Report in that the safety of the tree has been
compromised. Further required pruning for utility clearance and safety will
render the tree unsightly and not an attractive amenity on your property or
in the neighborhood.
A. The neighbors also have been complaining about the mess and safety
issues.
Phone: (650) 573-3733 Fax: (650) 345-789(; Emaii: roc:(Ziraiohosverfin-xom
Ms. Cindy Gilson
Page 2
September 19, 2005
Therefore, in my professional opinion, i recommend that this tree be removed and
replaced with two trees selected from the Burlingame Street Tree List.
Respectfully, a
Ralph S. Osterling
President
RSO:js
.-*N
--'IN
f
J •r ,
M
w CITY ,
CITY OF BJRLINGAME
URLIIV6AME BARKS M RECREATIONDEP TME NT
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Telephone (650) 558- 7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330
'o I.ORATCD , trax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org
June 15, 2005
Robert Gilson
30 Woodgate Ct.
Hillsborough, CA 94010
RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE CEDAR TREE C 1480 VANCOUVER
- BURLEVGAME
I reviewed your request for the removal of one Cedar tree in the backyard at the above address and
have made the following determination:
1) The tree is a healthy, mature, structurally sound specimen.
2) Criteria used to grant removal has not been met.
3) Therefore, the application has been denied.
`- For further consideration of this decision you may: 1) Submit an independent Arborist Report
supporting justifiable criteria for removal of this tree and, 2) Appeal this decision in writing to the
Burlingame Beautification Commission. Any documentation must be received at our office by June
27, 2005.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330.
Sincerely,
Steven Porter ° k
Civy Arborist - (ISA 9WC-3073)
SP/gb
CC: Herbert Wei TR Dolores B. Burnett TR
1470 Vancouver Avenue 1477 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Thomas Eastham TR
1473 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Steven Porter ° k
Civy Arborist - (ISA 9WC-3073)
SP/gb
CC: Herbert Wei TR Dolores B. Burnett TR
1470 Vancouver Avenue 1477 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Thomas Eastham TR
1473 Bernal Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT APPLICATION
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 is being performed
04i14i0t THCT 14:20 FAX 65OS934443 MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO
Mayne Tree Ex ert Company, Inc.
I:STABLISII@D 1431 STATE CONTRACTOR"S LICENSE NO 776793
6MD1.1,4XIE FORESTER CT.R IFIFr) Ai moms rs PF„ST CONTKUI: ADVISORS AND OPP.R TORS
RICEIAKI1 r_. HUNTING ION
PRESIDENT April 11, 2005
M-NIN R. K1h17Y
OPLUA IONS MANAGER
Attn: James Chu
Chu Design and Engineering
39 West 43r0 Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
Re: Gilson Project, 1480 Vancouver, Burlingame, CA
Dear Mr. Chu:
Z002
S35 GRAGATO ROAD, STE. A
SAN CARI.OS. CA 94070-6228
I'EI,EPIIUNE: (650) 593-4400
FACSIMILE: (650) 5934443
GMAII:, men @111ayncu'ce.uom
On April 6, 2005, I inspected 28 trees on the above referenced site. The existing house
is to be removed, the lot sub -divided and two new houses built.
This report assigns a number to and identifies each tree, All trees were measured at 54
inches above grade. They were given a Condition rating which is a combination of
�.. general tree health and structure and (a perfect tree would be 100 percent). Life
expectancy is also addressed, where appropriate.
The "Comments" section explains the condition rating, as well as general tree Character-
istics such as past care, recommended care, hazards, maturity, landscape functions, etc.
Only 6 trees have a 70 percent or greater condition rating. Tree with ratings below 70
percent are candidates for removal, but this does not mean they may not remain.
TREE SURVEY
'Tree No. Species Dl3H Condition Comments
(Inches) (Percent)
1 Sycamore 14.1 70 Street tree; has been topped for line
clearance.
2 Sycamore 16.4 65 Street tree; has been severely topped
for fine clearance,.
3 Sycamore 22.0 70 Street tree; topped for line clearance,
4 Sycamore 16,6 65 Street tree; topped for line clearance.
04/14/OS T$1! 14:20 FAX. 6505934443
MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO Z003
Chu/Gilson 4-11-05, Pg. 2
Tree No. 5oecies
5 China berry
6 Plum
7 Tritania
8 Tritania
9 Tritania
10 Crabapple
TREE SURVEY (continued)
DBH Condition Comments
(Inches) (Percent)
9.0
45
Significant top dieback. Recommend
removal.
6.3,6.3,
65
This is a mature tree. Recommend
4.9,4.0,4.8
removal.
4.4
60
Slight lean and is suppressed. is in
footprint of proposed driveway.
5.8
75
Good screen tree. Proposed
6.8 70
6.5 70
11 Privet 7.6 60
2 Privet 6.3,6.0,4.8 60
13 Plum 6 a,3.5,3.3, 50
3.1, 3.2, Z.0
14 Privet 4.8,4.4 55
15 Deodar ce r 45,9 70
16 Pittosporum 4.1,4.1 60
3.8, 2.7, 2.6
17 Cotoneaster 3.9,3.11 60
3.0,2.9
driveway may need to be moved in
order to retain tree.
Good screen tree. Proposed
driveway may need to be moved in
order to retain tree.
Most growth on north side. In
proposed driveway.
Leans with all growth on west side.
in proposed driveway.
Tree has been topped and is in
proposed driveway.
Prune to fan shape if retained. Has
included bark.
Leans, with all growth on north side.
Is in proposed footprint.
East side has been cut for line clear-
ance and limbs are heavy and brittle.
Safety of the tree has been compromised;
Tree is mature and will start to fail.
Forks at base.
Is a large shrub.
04/14/05 TEU 14:20 FAX. 6505934443 MAYNE TREE =PERTS CO
Z004
Gilson 4-11-05, Pg. 3
TREE SURVEY (Continued)
Tree No. Species
DBH Condition Comments
(Inches) (Percent)
18 Japanese maple
5.2, 4.8, 45 Has verticillium wilt disease.
5.0,3.7,5.3 Pruning out dieback would be beneficial,
if tree is retained.
19 Coast live oak
8.4 60 Leans, with all growth on south side.
20 Coast live oak
13.9 65 Forks @ 8' with included bark. Has
been pruned for line clearance.
21 Sycamore
15.8 60 There has been significant line clear-
ance. Tree has potential to undermine
utilities.
22 Stone pine
31.2 50 Topped for line clearance, has very
large limbs on the south. Tree is
breaking curb and uplifting sidewalk.
There is high risk of south limbs failing.
Removal recommended.
23 Sycamore
16.3 65 Outgrowing space, has been line cleared.
24 Black acacia
6.8 55 Volunteer, topped for line clearance.
Removal recommended
25 Black acacia
14.0 55 Volunteer, topped for line clearance.
Removal recommended.
26 Pear
11.7 60 Street tree, growing into wire, has basal
deformity.
27 Bailey acacia
6.5,6.1,4.2 20 Tree leans and is dying. Removal is
recommended,
28 Incense cedar
1119 80 Hides the power pole, not encroaching
into wires.
T'nere can be obstacles to protecting trees during construction, An example would be
protecting the street trees.
Their roots are below the hardscape, so fencing at the
dripiine will not work. Therefore,
fence along the site side of the sidewalk. The retained
trees, such as the live oaks, No. 19 and No. 20, may be fenced at 10 feet away, or as
far from the trunks as needed to complete construction. The fencing shall not be moved
without authorization from
the Arbonst and the City, The area within the protective
fencing is not to be breached,
MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO z005
04/i4;05 THL� 15:2o FAX 6505894443 '
W
Gilson 4-11-05, Pg. 4
This means that these areas are off-limits to all construction activity and materials,
Also, utility trenching should not be done within these areas without the Arborist's
approval.
I think this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices.
Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Huntington
Certified Arborist WE #0119A SppIETY OF
Certified Arborist #1925 o�P y NU'V 4
RLH:dcr
No. WE•011oA m