Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2004.06.03NOTICE �- B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION JUNE 39 2004 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL Conference Room A 501 PRIMROSE ROAD B URLINGAME, CA A GENDA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF MAY 6'H 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 A. Committee Reports VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for the Removal of a City owned Liriodendron Tree @ 212 Stanley Rd. B. Discussion of Criteria Used for Tree Related Sidewalk Damage C. Cancellation of the July 3' Beautification Commission Meeting VII. REPORTS A. Parks & Recreation Director B. Parks Superintendent C. Chairperson D. Commissioners DATE: May 24, 2004 TO: BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION `— FROM: PARKS SUPERINTENDENT/CITY ARBORIST STAFF REPORT RE: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL TO REMOVE A CITY OWNED LIRIODENDRON TREE AT 212 STANLEY ROAD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Burlingame Beautification Commission hold a hearing on the appeal of the denial to remove the City owned Liriodendron tree at 212 Stanley Avenue (tree number 2) at its June 3, 2004 meeting. BACKGROUND: The property at 212 Stanley Road has two City Street Trees, both Liriodendrons. The trees are 20'-25' apart on a 50' wide lot. Much of Stanley Road is planted with Liriodendrons. The single species on the street provides an appealing shade canopy. The Liriodendron tree was removed from the Street Tree List some time ago. Over the years significant time and money has gone into controlling the chronic aphid problem on this species. The attendant problem with aphid infestation is that the insects produce a sugary substance often called "honeydew." The honeydew accumulates on hardscapes and parked vehicles. Often sooty mold grows on the honeydew and creates additional maintenance problems for homeowners. The City has attempted to control the aphids by various means over the years —insecticidal soap, horticultural oil (dormant and growing season applications), water spray, selective pruning, and chemical sprays. Most controls met with limited success or required multiple applications. For the past five years the City has soil injected the pesticide Merit. The product is taken up through the roots in the Spring. Sucking insects, like aphids, are killed when they feed on the leaves of treated plants. The success rate has been reasonably good, although not 100% effective. The Liriodendrons also drop nectar from their annual blooms. That nectar can also create maintenance problems for homeowners. There are no controls for the nectar; it usually occurs in late April and early May. 212 Stanley tree #2 has the additional problem of severe root pruning. That occurred on the subject tree when the sidewalks were last replaced. The root pruning limited the ability of the tree to uptake soil injected pesticide. This probably resulted in less effective aphid control on the tree during one or more seasons. The tree is also very close to the driveway at 212 Stanley, leaving little room for future manipulation of the sidewalk configuration. Although the current pesticide injection system has been quite successful, there are no future guarantees. The program may be at risk in the future due to budget constraints and/or continuing mandates to reduce the use of pesticides. The Campos' who own the property, have requested removal of the tree several over the past few years. They have never brought the issue to the Commission, having agreed that the City was making good faith efforts to control the problem. They made the request again this year. Arborist Porter has denied the request(s), since the tree is (was) in good health. He has been, however, sympathetic to the situation and has suggested bringing it to the Commission on appeal. M i CITE' OF BURLINGA.ME i PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT i C8U RLIff?AM E; 850 Burin. -am,.- Awn,,,e. Burlingame. California 94010-2899 a Telephorie '6K' ;> -300 , Parks / Trees ,650) 558 -30 ---� Fax i640, 696 216 • F-rnaii: recreationC_'b..ilingamu_org Nlav 24, 2004 John F. Campos 212 Stanley Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQCESTFORTHERE1VIOtALOFACITYLIRIODENDROATREEATZ12ST_IALEF ROAD We are in receipt of your letter of May 21, 2004 requesting removal of the Liriodendron tree at the above address. The Commission will review this matter and render a decision at the June -1 1 2004 meeting. The Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "A" at the City Hall should you wish to attend and address the Commission regarding your request. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent r 1"141 CC- Resident Resident Resident 208 Stanley Rd. 216 Stanley 217 Stanley Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame. CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Resident. Resident 213 Stanley Rd. 209 Stanley Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 J Dear Burlingame Beautification Board, My name is John F. Campos, and I litre at 212 Stanley Rd. in Burlingame. I am requesting, for the following reasons, that the City tree that is located next to my driveway be removed. o Since the City has topped the tree, the tree is tilting toward the front side of our house. We have a concern, that this might provide safety issues for our family. o The roots of the tree are displacing the sidewalk, and are causing plumbing problems at our residence. The roots are also possibly causing problems with the main sewer line. o The City is also unable to effectively deal with the aphid problem every year due to the structure of the root system, and the tree's location by the driveway. Both of our cars are swamped with a sticky solution from March through September, every year, due to the flowering of the tree in Spring, and the aphid problem in Summer. For the above reasons, and for the fact that we have a son disabled with Autism, and do not have time to be washing our cars every other day, I politely ask you to strongly consider the replacement of this tree by the City of Burlingame. Tha you, John F. Campos OR DATE: May 24, 2004 TO: BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION FROM: TIM RICHMOND/STEVE PORTER RE: EVALUATING SIDEWALK DAMAGE —NON ACTION DISCUSSION Council recently passed an ordinance revision giving responsibility to property owners for the repair of sidewalks fronting their property. The previous practice was for the City to fully fund an annual sidewalk repair contract. Under the new arrangement the City will only provide repairs to mitigate immediate hazards. It is possible that in the future the Commission will consider issues/appeals involving sidewalks that have been damaged fully or in part by City Street Trees. At its May meeting the Commission expressed an interest in familiarizing itself with the subject of sidewalk damage. A case study is a good starting point for developing a workable decision making/findings process. The City Arborist recently approved the removal of a Liquidambar City Street Tree at 1369 DeSoto Avenue at the request of the property owner. There is severe sidewalk damage at that location. The City Arborist considered the following elements in arriving at his decision to approve removal (the elements are considerations only and are neither equally weighted nor mutually exclusive): 1. Health of the tree. 2. Species. Is it appropriate to the location and width of planting strip? 3. Can the sidewalk be rerouted to save the tree? 4. Damage caused by roots to: a. Curb/gutter b. Sidewalk c. Driveway 5. Proximity to driveway apron 6. Projected stability of tree after required root pruning 7. Structure of tree (this includes topping by PG&E) 8. Tree's significance to the streetscape on the entire block (neighborhood) At the June 3, 2004 Beautification Commission meeting Arborist Porter will discuss his evaluation process and findings. He will describe his reasoning in concluding that removal would be permitted. The Commission may ask questions of the Arborist regarding his decision making process. The Commission may also wish to discuss how it would approach similar cases that might reach the appeal stage. The Commission may elect to continue the discussion over the course of several meetings. Commissioners are encouraged to visit the site before the meeting. This agenda item is discussion only. No action is required by the Commission. 11-N -IN, Utility Tree Trimming Committee GOAL: To identify effective ways the City of Burlingame and PG&E can work together to minimize the impact of power lines on the health and beauty of Burlingame trees. ISSUE: Both the community and the commission are dissatisfied with the "flat -cutting" of trees under power lines. OBJECTIVES: 1. Understand the facts pertaining to health impact on different species of trees that are "flat -cut" instead of tunnel -cut. 2. Understand PG&E policies for trimming and/or removal of trees 3. Understand when, why, and how the traditional tunnel -cut process was changed �. 4. Understand certification or training of contracted tree trimmers; do they know how to protect the health of a tree? 5. Understand the facts associated with undergrounding power lines; cost, funds available, procedures and laws. 6. Understand how any recommended approach fits within the politics of other PG&E/City issues INFORMATION SOURCES: PG&E City Arborist Parks & Rec dept. Internet pages