Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2006.07.13� AGENDA B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION JULY 13, 2006 5:30 P.M. CITYHALL Conference Room A - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD B URLINGAME, CA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF MAY 4, 2006 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. Request for the Removal of 6 City -Owned Pittosporum Trees at 2100 Easton Dr., Due to Allergies 2. Request for the Removal of a City -owned Cypress Tree at 1812 Easton Dr., Due to Damage to Driveway and Private Brick Fencing 3. P.G.&E. Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame 4. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive — Discussion/Approval of Community Meeting Minutes 5. City Streets with No Trees bW62' VI. NEW BUSINESS 1. Nominating Committee Appointment for August Election of Officers VII. REPORTS 1. Staff 2. Chairperson 3. Commissioners OR CITY CITY OF BURLINGAIVIE BURL1NGAM PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 d OTelephone (650) 558-7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 °w.—Teo �' Fax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org May 5, 2006 Mr. Thomas Hornblower 2100 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SIX CITY -OWNED PITTOSPORUM TREES @ 2100 EASTON DRIVE - BURLINGAME At its regular meeting of May 4, 2006 the Burlingame Beautification Commission reviewed your request for the removal of six City -owned Pittosporum trees fronting the above address. The Commission moved to continue this item to the June 1, 2006 meeting in order to obtain more information with regard to cost for removal and replacement as well as possible alternatives to removal, such as treatments to suppress flowering and/or other appropriate remedies. As the applicant, you are encouraged to submit to our office, prior to the meeting, any documentation that supports your reasons for requesting removal of these trees. You will again have the opportunity to further discuss your request with the Commission at the June I' meeting. The Commission will meet at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "A" at City Hall. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, 110 1 Cj__' / Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent TR/kh CC: Richard Voon 2104 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Michael Griffin Ernest & Phyllis Boden Jadine & Kenneth Kawahara 2108 Easton Drive 2020 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Robert & Grace Woods 1315 Vancouver Avenue 1255 Jackling Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 M CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT BU RLiNGAME 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 ° Telephone (650) 558-7300 • Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 �M�ORNT[O Fax (650) 696-7216 ^ E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org June 6, 2006 Mr. Thomas Hornblower 2100 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Hornblower, In preparation for the Beautification Commission's consideration of your request for permission to remove the six Pittosporum Street Trees at your address, Staff explored several alternate options. One option was chemical treatments to prevent/minimize blossoms on the trees. The company representative with whom I spoke was optimistic about finding a remedy. He said that he would treat the trees before bloom with a growth regulator (Embark) and would follow up with a fruit preventing regulator (Florel). The representative thought that the operation could be accomplished for about $300. He is continuing the discussion of chemical remedies with his colleagues. My conversations were with Kevin Kielty of Mayne Tree Expert. This is not a recommendation of that firm. Any licensed Pest Control Operator (PCO) could provide the same service. You may wish, however, to discuss this option with companies of your choice in advance of the continuation of the hearing on your removal request. The Parks Division would consider a request for a permit to attempt a chemical remedy for the 2007 blooming season. Such a request would not require Commission approval, since the trees would remain in place. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent (650) 558-7333 Cc: Beautification Commission Randy Schwartz, Director of Parks & Recreation M DATE: May 16, 2006 TO: BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION FROM: PARKS SUPERINTENDENT — TIM RICHMOND STAFF REPORT RE: 2100 EASTON DRIVE REMOVAL REQUEST At its May 4, 2006 meeting the Beautification Commission heard a request from the resident at 2100 Easton Drive for permission to remove and replace the six Pittosporum undulatum City Street Trees at that address. The resident complained that the intense white floral fragrance from the trees causes severe headaches for him through the lengthy blooming season. The Commission discussed the issue at length and requested additional information regarding possible solutions from the applicant and from Staff. Staff has identified several options for the Commission to consider. 1. Issue a permit for the property owner to have the blossoms physically removed from the trees by a licensed tree care company before bud break. A rough estimate from a local company was approximately $1800 for the work. 2. Issue a permit for the property owner to contract with a licensed tree care company to spray the trees with a growth regulating product, e.g. Florel, which is designed and labeled to prevent fruit production on ornamentals. The product, if applied correctly, might abort the blooming process in the tree but there are no guarantees. 3. Issue a permit for the property owner to remove the trees and replace them with four Gingko biloba trees at his expense. A rough estimate to remove the six trees and stumps has been estimated to cost approximately $700, but does not include the cost of tree purchase and planting. 4. Deny the request and retain the current six trees. Options 1 and 2 afford the Commission the opportunity to provide relief to the resident, while avoiding removal of healthy City Street Trees. These two options would also provide a defined period, e.g. one or two years, during which potential remedies could be evaluated without setting a removal precedent. The Commission's decision on any of the above options may be appealed in writing (with a $250 fee) to the City Council. CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME Y&, BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Telephone (650) 558-7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 C-RORIITEDFax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org June 28, 2006 Mr. Thomas Hornblower 2100 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF SIX CITY -OWNED PITTOSPORUM TREES @ 2100 EASTON DRIVE - BURLINGAME Due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts, the Beautification Commission will be unable to obtain a quorum for the July 6th meeting. Therefore, the meeting will be postponed to July 13, 2006. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Should you wish to attend the July 13'' 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 5:30 p.m. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent TR/kh CC: Richard Voon Ernest & Phyllis Boden Jadine & Kenneth Kawahara 2104 Easton Drive 2108 Easton Drive 2020 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Michael Griffin Robert & Grace Woods 1315 Vancouver Avenue 1255 Jackling Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY C CITY OF BURLINGAME BU RLIN6AME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT +- 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 • Telephone (650) 558-7300 Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 C•IPORATEO 9 Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: recreation@burlingame.org May 12, 2006 Ms. Judith Schneider 1812 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Schneider: parkr & Your request for removal of the Monterey Cypress fronting your property will be heard by the Beautification Commission at its June 1, 2006 meeting. The meeting will be held at 5:30 pm in Conference Room A at City Hall. You are welcome to attend, and time will be allocated for you and any interested parties to speak about the request. If you wish to submit any documents prior to the hearing, please do so through this office. The documents will be distributed to the commissioners in advance of the meeting. The Commission is working on a recommendation to Council regarding the reforestation of Easton Drive between El Camino Real and Vancouver Avenue. All requests for removal on that portion of the street are being referred to the Commission. At our request, Mayne Tree Expert Company has prepared an Independent Arborist report on the Cypress tree (enclosed). Staff will include a report on the tree as well. Adjacent property owners listed below are also receiving notification. Should the Commission uphold your removal request and if there are no appeals to the Council regarding that decision, the removal will be scheduled for a future Tree Contract. If you have any questions about the meeting and its procedure, please call this office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent Cc: Randy Schwartz, Director Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor Beautification Commission Arkady & Lia Shusterman A.P. Gouailhardau Francis Lapetina III & Sandra Clewans 1808 Easton Drive 1809 Easton Drive 1815 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Piers & Leigh Lingle Rory O'Driscoll & Olive McMahon 1270 Drake Avenue 1344Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR" S LICENSE NO.276793 GRADUATE FORESTER • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6225 KEVIN R KIELTY April 25, 2006 TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 OPERATIONS MANAGER FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 EMAIL: infoa@maynefte.mm Attn: Robert Disko Parks and Recreation Dept. City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1812 Easton Avenue Dear Mr. Disko: At your request, on Friday, April 7 and again on Tuesday, April 18, 2006, I visited the above site. The purpose of my visits was to inspect and comment on the large cypress `-' tree in front on the City planting strip. Observations: The Monterey cypress, Cupressus macrocarpa, has a diameter at breast height of 49.8 inches. The tree is approximately 45 feet tall, with a spread of 50 feet and is 6 inches from the driveway. The foliar color is good but the shoot growth is below normal. Several scars on the trunk exhibit exposed xylem (sapwood). Pruning History: The cypress has been well maintained in the past and is well balanced. The tree was topped in the past; this may have been done to remove a dead top. In addition, the limbs were shortened to reduce the chance of limb drop. Damages Caused By This Tree: The sidewalk was repaved in 1992 and has since been lifted by the tree. Asphalt has been placed in areas to relieve the trip -hazard. The driveway has had a 3 foot section removed and replaced with pea gravel to help reduce root damage. Brick pillars which hold the gates have been lifted and are no longer plumb. The remainder of the drive- way has been lifted. Burlingame Parks & Rec. Dept/Disko 4-25-06, Pg. 2 Tests: A mallet test was performed to hear any hollow spaces in this tree. This is a test which helps identify cavities in a tree and, in this case, no cavities were detected. A drill test was performed in the area approximately 4 feet above ground where xylem has been exposed due to cankers or injury by equipment. The test results were that a solid, dead core was found approximately 6 inches below the live bark edge. This is the location of the exposed xylem and the wood at that point is solid, but dry (common with this species). Root crowns were inspected by cutting into the bark with a chisel and inspecting the tissue beneath. Some decay was noted, but most tissue was alive and solid. Summary: This large Monterey cypress is an over -mature tree. This tree will continue to decline and is a good candidate for replacement as a reforestation project. This cypress has caused property damage for years on this site. However, it is a part of the tree -lined street which gives Easton Drive its distinction. The tree does not appear to be an immediate hazard as it is large -bottomed and has a fairly small foliar canopy. Surface roots do have decay; however, I believe this is an equipment injury and not a disease - caused problem. Location of the tree is also problematical. Removal is not an immediate need, but this should be one of the first trees removed. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist E #0476A BSWGM Driveway damage from roots and pea gravel used to help relieve it. "\ "1 ,i, �,' J JJ y ,� t ��' ht.. J � ge V:..a �R � E � �� I ;..� �� + 1 it �. �. y _�', �tVri" :.a � 't- .. � _ ' � 2 of � z{ ' NR i' �",i�,'( _ ,t - P�' 4 � 1 1' S `1 ` 36 Yr � � '� i '`t�`t' :S � 1' � .[ � '.i ,� `' � r.. � e �� ' �, ��' ,h � � ��` �r, ��: —'-1 —'— .; i ��t � ��n ��(" J i 4 �nqz. _'e / � � `, a 4 r �C t � T. � � '< � � � __ } �' � � .. E .s - � R�r _. .a z- ! - ... ... Red flags mark locations for drill tests. '1 ..*N TREE HAZARD EVALUATION FORM Site/Address: Map/Location: Owner. publicA2rprivate ❑ unknown ❑ other ❑ Date: Arborist: Kevin R. Kielty ISA#: WE #0476A Arborist's Signature: TREE CHARACTERISTICS Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating ❑ Immediate action. needed ❑ Needs further inspection ❑ Dead tree Tree #: species: �j ` DBH: Y�inches # of trunks: Helght: yS feet Spread) 0 feet Form: 05--erally symmetric ❑minor asymmetry ❑major asymmetry ❑stump sprout ❑stag -headed Crown Class: dominant ❑co -dominant ❑intermediate ❑suppressed Live crown ratio::_n ��L% Age Cuss ❑..yoou/ung ❑semi -mature ❑mature ver-maturelsenescent Pruning History. +�Jcrowcleaned ❑excessirvelythinnedpwpped ❑crown raised ❑pollarded Drown reduced Oflush cuts Ocabled/breced ❑none Plmultipie pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: []specimen hedtage/historic ❑wildlife ❑unusual ❑street tree ❑screen Oshade []indigenous ❑protected by gov. agancy TREE HEALTH Foliage Cover r al Ochlo��rotic ❑necrotic EpicormiN Growth obstructions: Foliage Density: ❑normal E<r .e Leaf size: Onormal cs? mall []stakes ❑wirefties ❑signs ❑cables. Annual shoot growth: ❑excellent ❑average ❑poor Twig Disbact? Y N []curblpavement ❑guards woundwood development: ❑excellent rage ❑poor ❑none ❑other Vigor class: ❑excellent ❑average bf—air ❑poor Major pestsldiseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character. residenee ❑commercial ❑industrial ❑park ❑open space Onatural ❑woodland/forest Landscape type: parkway ❑raised bed ❑container ❑mound ❑lawn ❑shrub border ❑wind break brigation: none ❑adequate ❑inadequate ❑excessive ❑trunkwettled Recent site disturbance? Y N ❑construction ❑soil disturbance ❑grade change ❑line cleadng ❑site clearing �. %driplinepaved: ❑0% ❑10-25% 025-50% $50-75% 075-100% Pavement llftsdZ Y1N • dripline wtMlzoft: j20% 010-25% 025-50% ❑50-75% 075-100% %driptinegrade lowered: % 010-25% 025-50% ❑50-75% 075-100% SoN problems: ❑drainage []shallow ❑compacted []droughty ❑saline ❑alkaline ❑acidic ❑small volume Odisease center ❑historyof fail ❑clay ❑expansive ❑slope _° aspect _ Obstructions: ❑lights []signage ❑liin�ne-of-site ❑view ❑overhead tines ❑underground utilities ❑traffic []adjacent veg. ❑ Exposure to wind: Osingle tree �elbelow canopy ❑above canopy []recently exposed []windward, canopy edge ❑area prone to windthrow Prevaging wind direction: 4. .:!t Occurrence of snow/ice storms: jKever Oseldom ❑reguiariy TARGET Use under Tree: 09ullding eparidng Jfflc uoetl stdan Can target be moved? Y(1 ) Can use be restricted? Y0 occupancy: Doccasionalvuse ❑Pntenntttent use pfrequent use []recreation iandscape 1 arciscape []small features []utility lines ".natant use No TREE DEFECTS ROOT DEFECTS: Suspect root rot: YO Mushroomlconklbracket present: Y N ID: Exposed roots: ❑severe 6mderate ❑low Undermined: ❑severe ❑moderate 816w Root pruned: V__5 distance from trunk Root area affected: _6' % Butt.. wounded oN When: ? Restricted root area: ❑severe ❑moderate 06,, Potential forrootfailurs: ❑severe ❑moderate ow LEAN. 0 deg. from vertical ❑natural ❑unnatural ❑self -corrected Soil heaving: Y( Decay In plane of lean: Y IG Roots broken: Y© Soil cracking: Y y) Compounding factors: Lean severity: ❑severe ❑moderate ❑low CROWAr AFFFCTS_, indirate nrpsence of individual defectr and rate their spverity h;=eevpre m=mnderate Wnwl DEFECT ROOT CROWN TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poortaper S M L S M L S M L S M L Bow, sweep S M L S M L S M L S M L Codominants/forks S M L S M L S M L S M L Multiple attachments S M L S M L S M L S M L Included bark S M L S M L S M L S M L Excessive end weight S M L S M L S M L S M L Cracks/splits S M L S M L S M L S M L Hangers S M L S M L S M L S M L Girdling S M L S M L S M L S M L Woundsiseam S. M L S L S M L S M L Decay S M 5 L S M L S M L Cavity S M L S M L S M L S M L Con ks/mushroomslbracket S M L S M L S M L S M L Bleeding/sap flow S M L S M L S M L S M L Looselcracked bark S M L S M L S M L S M L Nesting hold/bee hive S M L S M L S M L S M L Deadwood/stubs S M L S M L S M L S M L Borersherrniteslants S M L S M L S M L S M L Cankers/gallsiburls S M L S M L S M L S M L Previous failure S M L S M L S M L S M L HAZARD RAT] NG Tree part most likely to fail: f j an _ /G 4,Vt Failure potential: 1-low; 2-medium; 3-high; 4-severe Inspection period: annual ❑biannual ❑other Site of part 1 - <6' (15 cm); 2 - 6-18' (1545 cm); 3 — 18-30' (45-75 cm); 4 -> 30' (75 cm) Target rating: 1 — occasional use; 2 — intermittent use; 3 — frequent use; 4 — constant use Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating + J-/ + 4 _ HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: ❑remove defective part ❑reduce end weight ❑crown clean ❑thin ❑raise canopy ❑crown reduce ❑restructure ❑shape CabiefBrace: � Inspectfurther: ❑rootcrown ❑deray ❑aerial ❑monitor Remove tree/' Y )N ReplaceoY N Move Target: Yo Other: Effect onadjacent tress: none Devaluate la Notification: owner ❑manager oveming agency Data: COMMENTS City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010�g suRur19NW phone: (650) 558-7300 - fax: (650) 696-7216 recreationaa,burhngame.org �° ► ' 4' NO HAZARDOUS TREE EVALUATION Date: 3/,231N, Evaluated by:. Owner : °City _ Private Tree Health Foliage color: _ Norm Foliage density: norm Annual shoot growth: _ Twig Dieback: YN Woundwood development Vigor: _excellent Major pests/diseases: Site Site: % S )2, E:? aTft. Species: :€ s k-.e..t r, Unknown l Vchlorotic dead l t/sparse excellent average moor excellent ✓average poor average fair poor Site character: residence _commercial _ park _easement Landscape type: _mulch _pavement —lawn �arking strip _ Irrigation: none _automated _excessive _inadequate Recent site disturbance? Y construction _soil disturbance grade change _sidewalk replacement Pavement lifted: N none shrub border % dripline paved: 0% _10-25% 50-75% 75-100% Soil: v"compacted poor drainage clay _sandy/loam fill Hood Obstructions: _overhead lines underground utilities _adjacent veg. —Signs/poles v- one Exposure to wind: _single tree art of a grove _recently exposed windward. canopy edge Prevailing wind direction :` S14 Ta- Use under tree: V ouse building _�6arking traffic pedestrian '1 recreation vlandscape V"hardscape utility lines Occupancy:_ occasional use intermittent use frequent use W*'&5ionstant use Tree defects: Root defects: Suspect root rot: Y N Mushroom/conk/bracket present: Y N ID Exposed roots: _severe moderate VO-1110—w Root pruned:--- distance from trunk Root area affected % Buttress wounded: YnN When Restricted root area: severe immoderate low Potential for root failure: sever immoderate low Lean: deg. from vertical: natural unnatural elf corrected _severe moderate low Soil uplifting/cracking N!;% Roots: girdled kinked circling broken /"unknown rrnwn dpfertc - Defect Root Crown Trunk Scaffolds Branches Poor taper Bow, sweep condominants Multiple attachments Included bark Excessive end weight ✓` Cracks/splits Hangers Girdling Wounds/seam Decay Cavity Conks/Mushrooms Bleeding/sap flow Loose/cracked bark Nesting hole/bee hive Deadwood/stubs Bores/termites/ants Cankers/galls/burls Previous failure -'\ `.. Hazard Rating Tree part most likely to fail: ..f: Inspection period: annual biannual 3V_other Failure Potential + Size of Part + Target Rating = Hazard Rating Failure Potential: 1— low; 2 — medium; 3 — high; 4 — severe Size of part: 1- <6"; 2 — 6-18"; 3—18-30"; 4 ->30" Target rating: 1- occasional use; 2- intermittent use; 3- frequent use; 4- constant Ratings. 3-12 3=1ow hazard; 12 significant hazard o Hazard Abatement Prune: remove defective part ',, reduce end weight gown clean v'thin raise canopy crown reduce restructure _shape Inspect further: root crown decay aerial _monitor Remove tree: 0Y N Replace? Y N Move target: Y i Other Comments: :-cam' ' �; 4F ' �y Qit-� Lfi�_ �CJ'"..ti. � .•'a'.e. „ra..e''F � .'�� mot_ � �'` �i�''J�i'"�' ,o(` r lZo n-14 Adopted from: Evaluation of Hazard trees in Urban Areas: second edition: by Nelda Mathem & James Clark: c.1994 M DATE: MAY 16, 2006 TO: BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION FROM: PARKS SUPERINTENDENT — TIM RICHMOND RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF THE MONTEREY CYPRESS AT 1812 EASTON DRIVE Several months ago the resident at 1812 Easton Drive requested the removal of the City Street Tree, a Monterey Cypress, at that location. The driveway at that location was being lifted by a lateral root from the subject tree, and her car was scrapping bottom as it passed over the bulge. Another root appears to be lifting the brick fence at the property. Supervisor Disco allowed for the removal of the lifted flag of concrete in the driveway, and it was replaced with gravel. This alleviated the bottoming problem, but the property owner still wished to have the tree removed. Disco informed her that the request would likely be forwarded to the Beautification Commission, since Council had requested a reforestation recommendation from the Commission on a six block stretch of Easton Drive. He told her that if removal were approved, it would occur as part of the Tree Contract for the 2006-07 Fiscal Year. The Parks Division then retained Certified Arborist Kevin Kielty of Mayne Tree Expert Company to re assess the tree. Kielty had rated the tree in October 2004. At that time he rated it at 55, which falls in the 50-69 FAIR category. In his current report Kielty notes that the tree does not pose an apparent immediate hazard, but he did identify it as one of the first recommended removals for the street. Several options, among others, are available to the Commission: 1. Allow removal in Fiscal Year 2006-07 based on Kielty's most recent findings. 2. Deny current removal based on Kielty's most recent findings. 3. Withhold a ruling until the Easton Drive Reforestation Recommendation has been presented to Council. EXHIBITS: April 25, 2006 Arborist's Report Supervisor Disco s report on the tree CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME B U R L I N G A M E PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 • Telephone (650) 558-7300 • Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 CAA�owwT[o • Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: recreation @burlingame.org`"' June 28, 2006 Ms. Judith Schneider 1812 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE CITY -OWNED CYPRESS TREE @ 1812 EASTON DRIVE - BURLINGAME Due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts, the Beautification Commission will be unable to obtain a quorum for the July 6th meeting. Therefore, the meeting will be postponed to July 130, 2006. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Should you wish to attend the July 131 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 5:30 p.m. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent "991N1 CC: Arkady & Lia Shusterman A.P. Gouailhardau Francis Lapetina III & Sandra Clewans 1808 Easton Drive 1809 Easton Drive 1815 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Piers & Leigh Lingle Rory O'Driscoll & Olive McMahon 1270 Drake Avenue 1340 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY p ® �ty-� C}LT�.Z�j RECREATION BURLE7}GC�j'll►/�,1L,�J j���j � ?Ali' � 6 U RU R I E p= y:LOJi S & 3A E "v8iJ7. ATIO1 � DER-kRT V.ILJ{.�i V T � � S•� 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 _- July 14, 2006 Mr. Thomas Hornblower 2100 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL TO REMOVE A CITY -OWNED 5 PITTOSPORUM TREES @ 2100 EASTON DR. - BURLINGAME At its meeting of July 13, 2006, the Beautification Commission voted 6 - 0 - 1 (absent) to deny your appeal of the denial to remove 5 Pittosporums trees at the above address, with the recommendation that the City crews thin the trees and that an experimental systemic treatment be finther investigated to remove the fragrant flowers from the tree. Supervisor Disco indicated that the City's tree crew would conduct the pruning in November 2006 at no charge to the property owner. You may appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council in writing by July 31 st. Such letters of appeal must be accompanied with a $250 fee (made payable to the City of Burlingame) and delivered to the Parks & Recreation Department, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California, 94010. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may call the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent CIS" CC: Richard Voon Ernest & Phyllis Boden Jadine & Kenneth Kawahara 2104 Easton Drive 2108 Easton Drive 2020 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Michael Griffin Robert & Grace Woods `- 1315 Vancouver Avenue 1255 Jackling Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 OR City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. �, 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 MUM INGAME recreation&burlingame. org R MEMORANDUM To: Beautification Commissioners From: Randy Schwartz, Parks & Recreation Director 94 Tim Richmond, Parks Superintendent Date: May 19, 2006 Re: FIELD MEET WITH PG&E REPRESENTATIVES TO DISCUSS LINE CLEARANCE PRUNING On May 12, 2006, representatives from the Commission, staff and PG&E met to discuss pruning techniques performed by contractors to PG&E for purposes of line clearance. PG&E staff at this meeting included their Regional Arborist and the vegetation manager for the Bay Area. Commissioners Susie Lahey, Jill Lauder and Leslie McQuaide were present, as well as staff members Disco, Richmond and Schwartz. This meeting included site visits to the 400 block of Bloomfield, Howard Avenue below Arundel, the 700 block of Acacia, and 709 Linden. 1. PG&E has a specific directive from the Public Utilities Commission to clear high tension wires so that vegetation is 10' away. 2. A contract is let to perform the service. Contractor's crews must be certified in line clearance. 3. Contract is on a per tree basis. 4. It is unlikely that local companies could successfully bid, given the qualifications required and the competitive nature of the bids. 5. PUC sets limits on funding. Dedicated funding must be for line clearance. 6. PG&E has a Best Practices document for the contract pruning. It will be made available to the City. 7. Circuits in Burlingame are pruned at 13 month intervals. PG&E will give staff a schedule of when crews will be in Burlingame. 8. PG&E uses ISA standards for specific cuts. 9. Line clearance pruning is species specific. 10. Directional pruning is the method of choice for clearance. If not done, arborist wants to know. 11. Pruning is only to provide line clearance, not pruning of entire tree. 12. Vegetation division, which controls pruning, is not a part of undergrounding, pole placement, or rerouting. 13. Regional arborist is available to discuss specific issues with residents. Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Pla-y 14. PG&E reluctant to allow weak attachments growing out of old heading cuts to grow to significant lengths. Some likely to fail. Problem particularly with formerly pollarded Sycamores. 15. PG&E willing to work with City in selecting limited number of removal candidates each year. Would be willing to cooperate with Beautification in reforesting certain blocks which have highly inappropriate species under wires, e.g. Liquiambars. Underwounding At this meeting, we also discussed the potential to move towards undergrounding lines with City funds from PG&E. The PG&E representatives on site did not know the specifics of Burlingame's undergrounding account and suggested we check with the City's Public Works Department. Below is the statement from Public Works Director Bagdon: "We have about $3 Million in our PG&E undergrounding account. The average cost to underground is about $3 Million a mile. (It depends on marry factors such as location, size of line, other utility conflicts, etc) Typically, residential streets do not qualify for Rule 20 funds. Undergrounding funding is usually approved for arterial and collector streets with heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic as well as in public recreation areas and civic areas. Also, remember that the funds do not pay for undergrounding other utilities on the pole such as telephone, cable and street lighting, nor does it pay for private property owner service line undergrounding costs. " Summary Statement Staff recommends that the Beautification Commission: • Review and discuss the information received by Commissioners during the field meet `-' • Review the pruning standards booklet forwarded by the PG&E district supervisor • Review the PG&E offer to work with the City to remove and replant over time specific blocks with severely headed inappropriate trees • Invite Erin Parks, PG&E Area Utility Forester / Vegetation Manager to a Commission meeting to discuss any issues raised during the field meet Additionally, the Parks Division office will be referring PG&E specific pruning complaints from residents to Erin Parks. Erin has stated that she will meet with residents at their homes to view and discuss the tree in question. Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play