Loading...
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