Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2006.02.02AGENDA B URLINGAME BEA UTIFICA TION COMMISSION FEBR UAR Y 2, 2006 5:30 P.M. CITYHALL Conference Room A - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 2006 COMMISSION MEETING M. 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 of the Denial to Remove a Protected Deodar Cedar Tree @ 1480 Vancouver 2. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive — Committee Report 3. Arbor Day — Tuesday, March 7th @ Arguello Dr. Entrance to Mills Canyon Park VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. P.G.&E. Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame — Committee Report VII REPORTS 1. Staff 2. Chairperson 3. Commissioners CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME URLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Telephone (650) 558-7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 °• -,--- Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org January 12, 2006 Mr. Robert Gilson 30 Woodgate Ct. Hillsborough, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Gilson, At its January 5, 2006 meeting the Burlingame Beautification Commission heard your appeal of City Arborist Steve Porter's denial of your request to remove a protected size Deodar Cedar at 1480 Vancouver Avenue in Burlingame. The Commission carried over the appeal until the February meeting, so that it could hear directly from Mr. Porter, who was out of town when the meeting occurred. Mr. Porter submitted a written report to the Commission in lieu of a verbal report to the Commission. I have enclosed a copy of that report with this letter. Should you wish to discuss the contents of the report with Mr. Porter, please call him directly at (650) 558- 7254. He will be in the office the week of January 16. He generally works Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Please also find enclosed a copy of the minutes of the Commission meeting for your reference. If you have any questions, please call me at 558-7333. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent Cc: Steve Porter, City Arborist Enclosures: 12/27/05 Written Comment form Steve Porter January 5, 2006 Beautification Commission Minutes (unapproved) �. 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 4111105 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. BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MEETING — FEBRUARY 2, 2006 Easton Reforestation In early January Supervisor Disco and I met with Larry Costello of UC Extension regarding the reforestation species on Easton Drive. Larry had several immediate questions/observations. He was first interested in the form that the reforestation would take —blocks or spot replacement. We told him that it was clearly to be spot replacement over time. Larry believes that the most critical issue in reforestation will be the availability of light to the new plants. He believes that the light issue is more significant than soil profile or water delivery (both of which are also important). His initial thought was that deciduous trees would be best in that they don't require much light in their dormant period. That period is also the time when light is least available. Larry suggested that a wide variety of deciduous trees might work on the site. He named several eastern oaks, maples, and ashes, as well as some California native oaks. He also thought that sycamore, with its hardiness in this area, would be worth considering. He wanted to think further about the choices and the general situation on Easton. His initial thought was that three replacement species would be more than adequate. He suggested avoiding a situation of many species as replacements, thinking that would destroy the character of the street. Larry did suggest that we take soil samples at various locations early in the spring, when the soil is not saturated. He suggested sampling to three or four feet in order to get a good look at the soil profile, as well as obtaining samples for analysis. In his latest correspondence Larry said that he had brought a guest from Australia to look at the street. The guest was impressed with the size of the existing trees. He, however, saw real difficulties in piecemeal replacements, given the heavy shading and the competition from the existing eucalyptus trees. Larry raised the possibility of focusing on specific blocks in the initial reforestation efforts. This method could provide something of a test for the ability of new species to get a foothold, and it would give the residents a preview of the future look of the street. I went out to the site with this suggestion in mind. I noticed that the two south side blocks from Balboa to Cortez and Bernal to Vancouver are relatively sparsely planted at present. There isn't the deep shade of other locations. Perhaps we could consider recommending that the initial reforestation efforts be focused on those two blocks. The trees could be interplanted with the few eucalyptus trees there, and they would still receive adequate light to get started. The above discussion leads to further discussion by the Commission as to what is the next appropriate step. It may be a good time to focus on community input, as well as general strategy for reforestation. The Easton Committee has provided us with good thinking and suggestions on species that might work. Larry has provided some additional issues to think about. Where would the Commission like to go next? Larry will continue to be available for input in our process.