The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - BC - 1999.05.06NOTICE �-- BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION May 6,1999 5:30 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM "A" AGENDA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 1999 MEETING III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. FROM THE FLOOR V. OLD BUSINESS A. Permit Application to Remove Private Black Acacia tree @ 535 Almer Rd. B. Appeal of Denial for Permit to Remove Private Eucalyptus tree @ 1807 Sebastian Ave. C. P.G.&E. Proposal to Remove Casuarina Trees on the Eastside of California Dr./Broadway to Trousdale Dr. D. Selection of Replacement Trees on Broadway E. Street Tree Planting Westside of California Dr./Broadway to Burlingame Dr. F. Beautification Commission Ordinance (3.28) VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Request for Extension on Permit in Order to Meet Planting Requirements @ 1446 Capuchino Ave. B. Permit Application to Remove Six Eucalyptus Trees @ 524 El Camino Real. VII. REPORTS A. Park Superintendent B. Chairman C. Commissioners CITY o CITY OF BURLINGAME 2a''r@,a BURLINGAME �� PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ' 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 —� • Telephone (650) 696-3770 Parks / Trees (650) 696-7245'' /t Fax (650) 696-7216 E-mail: burlrec@aol.com April 2, 1999 Joan Lutz 719 Winchester Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST TO REMOVE ONE BLACK ACACIA TREE @ 535 ALMER ROAD - BURLINGAME At its meeting of April 1, 1999 the Beautification Commission received your request to remove a private Black Acacia tree at 53 5 Almer Road. The Commission will review this matter and render a decision at its May 6, 1999 meeting. The Commission meets at 5:30 p.m.in Conference Room "A" at City Hall should you wish to attend. Sincerely, Richard P. Quadrii Sr. Landscape Inspector RPQ/kh CC: Mr. Sorenson - 525 Almer Road #110 < CITY , CITY OF BURLINGAME,Y�� BURLIAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT NG 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 s �c'..o.fT.o��• Telephone (650) 696-3770 • Parks /Trees (650) 696-7245 Fax (650) 696-7216 • E-mail: burlrec@aol.com April 2, 1999 Aileen Fisher 1807 Sebastian Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL TO REMOVE ONE PRIVATE EUCALYPTUS TREE @ 1807 SEBASTIAN - BURLINGAME At its regular meeting of April 2, 1999, the Burlingame Beautification Commission received your appeal of the denial to remove a private Eucalyptus tree at the above address. The Commission will review this matter and render a decision at its May 6, 1999 meeting. The Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "A" at City Hall should you wish to attend. Sincerely, Richard P. Quadri Sr. Landscape Inspector RPQ/kh M ��.� CITY OF BURLINGAME SURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899"Cl Telephone (650) 696-3770 Parks / Trees (650) 696-7245 "'°""T" Fax (650) 696-7216 E-mail: burlrec@aol.com April 14, 1999 California Drive Resident Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Resident, At its last meeting the Burlingame Beautification Commission heard a tree removal proposal from Chris Hughes, a representative of PG&E. PG&E wants to remove the Casuarina trees on the east side of California Drive over a two year period. The trees are frequently topped by PG&E's contractor to keep them clear of the high voltage utility lines. The property on which the trees are planted does not belong to the City of Burlingame. It belongs to San Francisco Water Department, which can allow the removals. The City of Burlingame has no formal jurisdiction over the trees. The Beautification Commission is serving as a forum for information and public opinion on the matter. If you would like to hear more about the proposed project or express an opinion on this matter, there are several options. You may: Contact Mr. Hughes directly (650) 985-004, FAX (650) 985-5709 Write to the Beautification Commission at 850 Burlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Attend the May 6, 1999 meeting of the Commission at Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. Sincerely,_ 4',' Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent Pacific Gas and Electric Company 450 Eastmoor Avenue Daly City, CA 94015 City of Burlingame Beautification Committee May 6, 1999 RE: Customers that called PG&E regarding the California Drive removals. Dear Beautification Committee, These were all the calls that were received in response to the Cities notification letter of PG&E's intent to remove the trees. All except for the last caller, while opposed to the removals were understanding as to the need to remove the trees. 1 1300 block of California Opposed. Concerned about property value. Will go to the meeting. 2 On Eastmoor Opposed. Concerned abut resale and quality of life. 3 Eastmoor Opposed, but understanding. Bought home in 1976. 4 C/O Duffrin and CA. Drive Opposed.. concerned about dust, and the some sound that the trees block. States that the plant inventory is sparse. Person was the most concerned. Does not live there. Please take this information into consideration. Sincerely, f -- ;el-4 Chris Hughes Area Utility Arborist 04121f1999 03:10 650-343-1778 It CHURCH P4GE 01 FACSIMILE FACSIMILE DATE: TO: c J C FAX:_, i924 FROM: ROBERY E. CMURCM PHONE/FAX-(fW) 3:3-1776 NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):��,w s MESSAGE: 11 04.21/1999 03:10 650-343-1779 CHURCH PAGE 02 AFR 20 '99 12:29 FR PG&E 5F CALL CENTER 415 26. W21 U �lo'k73��1�'�a*�l '• +''v 010 FAX Wwr W of ma Mdw" covw sh" S~ From *.F. CALL COMR 304Md I tl 8 8 ISM Floor dawn FftmWm CA $41O7 Phony PhOM d/ / 5 - .Z B'/ - / 3. �6 { Fax Phony - 1 7 ZS -JK .5 1 Fax PhOm 415•Zi7-4251 CC: U L"Sm Cl Fur your rtviOw CJ ft* AW O p4ma amm"m V M- 04/ 21 / 1999 03:10 650-343-17'8 CHURCH PAGE 03 nr� cu 77 a� • c7 r M rk yr ar t nLt� bG" C1c w� et: beet i J y.bJL1�+�31 i'rac/ k1' R&A"d Cat'. P. U.C. V" W 11239-E Dae/Mo oar are awbie Company CanookV Rwiwd Cal. P.U.C. 9ihto NO, 7854.E 14T San FMA ION, CaNcma StIl F 2"IEPL> CF-MENT QF O R FJQ MTH UNDF-E ISQUN15 FLF-CIRIC FA-ItFACIt ITl S A. PG&E wilt, at its expense, replace its existing overhead electric facMbn with underground eiectria facilities along public strests and roads, and on publtc lands and private prowty across which rlo*af-ways satisfactory to PG&E have been obtabwd by PG&E, provided that 1. The governing body of the city or county in which such electric farmties are and will be located has: a. Determined, after consultation wllh PG&E and after holding public hearings on the subject, that such urdergrounding is in the general public interest for one or neon of the following reasons: 1) 8uch undergrounding will avola or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhe®d electric facilites; 2) The street or read or right -of way is extensively used by the general Public and carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic; and 3) The street or road or right -of way adjoins or passes through a civic area or pudic racnation area or an area of unusual scenic interest to the general public, b. Adopted an ordinance creftV an underground dstrict in the area in which both the exMing and new facilities are and will be located requiring, among other things, (1) that all existing overhead cornmunlcatian and alectric dietribution lac Mkm In such district shall be removed, (2) that each property served ft'om such electric overhead facilities shall have installed in accordance with RME's rules for underground service. all aiectrical Wky changes on the premises necessary to receive service from the underground facilities of PCME as soon as it is available, and (3) authorizing PG&E to discontinue its overhead service. (CalUnued) AdWaf Later NO. 130" Mkood by Data Alad Judd t. � 9su Decision IYo, 90-05-032 Gorgon R Wm El9ricllw� utu t T. � 9so We Pr•vidan wid ROSOWkYl N Q 22109 CJrte1 Ff wmW CMioer 04r`�1:1/1999 03:10 650-343-177c CHURCH PAGE 04 APR 20 ' 99 12: 29 FR PC$= SF CALL CENTER 415 28. 6a61 TO 316503431 77 8*51 Q1 kmao CiL P. U.0 Wtow No. 11240 E wane am and erissc CWNpWW cwvpft CO A v. C. ShW Na 11M SW Am COMIM6 RULF 20--REPLAQEMMT OF MRHFACJ WIMI UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC FACUTIES (t^,antinueq) A. (Cont'd.) 2. PG&E's total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding within any bity or the unincorporated area of any county shall be allocated as follows: a. The amount allocated to each city and county in 1M shall be the highest of 1) The amount allocated to the city or county in 1989, which amount shall be allocated In the some ratio that the number of overhss l motets ir such city or uNnaorporated area of any County bears to the total system overhead rneters: or 2) The amount the city or county would receive W PUE's total annual budgeted amount for undergrvunding provided In 1980 were allocated in the ssrne ratio that the number of overhead meters in each city or the unincorpocated ante of each county bears to the total system overhead meters based on the latest count of overhead meters available prior to establishirtp the 1990 allocations; or 3) The amount the city or aunty would receive If P1356a total annual budgetact amount for undergro ur4ing provided in I M were allocated as follows: a) My percent of the budgetso amount allocated In the some ratio that qta number of overhead meters In any city or the unincorporated area of any county bears to the total "tam overhead meters; and b) Fifty percent of the budgeted amount allocated in the same ratio VW the total number of meters In any city or the unincorporated area d shy county bears to the total system meters. (Contlnuod) Adw a Lotbe No. 1300•6 13.1UOd by Onto t-1r�d L�nn�066 D*0184n No. 00-08-032 Radon R. Sm" Vh= Peru End ROGOWM NO. 22110 ChW FIrlsrt" QMW 04; 21 / 19'39 09. 1 l 650-343-1-779 CHURCH PAGE 05 -Fr 2e ' 99 12: 30 FF PG&E 5F CRLL Ltn l tK 41, mod: b1bl I U on *Ml CaL P.U.C. Stoat No. 11241.E 19 People bile SW Doe "Cwaoany Cancy" Cal. P.U.C. Shoat No. San Awpom, CONAwft A. (Cont'd.) 2. (Conrd.) b. Except as provided in Section 2.c., the amount allocated for undergroulding within any city or the unincorporated am of any county In 1991 and Wdw years shall use the amount actually allocated to the city or county in 1000 as the bean, and any dtatfrom the I M I" in IDGIM's total annual budgeted amount for undergrounding shall be allocated to individual titles and counties as roe ., 1) Fifty pennant of the change from the 1990 total budgeted amount shalt be allocated in the some ratio that the number of overhead metem in any ply or uninwrporal'ed area of any oounty bears to the total system overhead meters; and 21 fft percot of the change from Nre IM total budgeted amcwt shall be allocated in the same ratio that the total number of meters In any city or the unincorporated area Of any county bears to the total system meters. C. When a city incorporates, resulting in a transfer of utility meters from the unincorporated area of a county to the city, there shall be a permanent transfer d a prorate portion of the counts 1990 allocation bass referred to in Section 2.b. to the city. The amount transfarred shall be determined; 1) My percent based on the ratio that the number of overhead meters in the city bean to the total system overhead meters; old 2) fifty percent based on the ratio that the total number of meters In the city boors to the total system motors. wim torritory is annexed to on existing city, it *oil be the responsibility of the cky and County afl dod, in consultation with the utility serving the territory, to agree upon an amount of tw 1990 allocation base that will be transferred from the county to the city, and ttwrsofter to Jointly notlty PG&E in wr". (Continued) Adom Leifer N0. 1300-E IsK ed by gaft f1Nd ,tuna T. 199n Cocision NO. e0-05432 GOMM a at"M EffooMm .tutu 1 T_ Vida Pe ON" RaeokfQbn No. 221l l F MMV and ROW Q r':1; 1999 03:10 650-3C3-1778 CHURCH PAGE 06 MPK 10 . 7" i.e` J1 "< r'U6t 41: [-+. C1b: u '�ibJr��Jl rrpx�l r • u�� r RevJW CO. P.U.C. Sheet No. 11242-E Psaft was and Else** Coa"ey Comm" RVAM Cal, P. U.C. Sheet Ate. 78S4-E 11M Son FOl/i' "O. Caskir ie (Continusd) A. (Conrd.) z (Conrd.) However, Section 2 a. b, and c shalt not apply to PG&E where the total arnount available for allocation under Rule 2" is squat to or greater than 1.3 tirnes the previous year's gUftwide average on a per customs basis. In such cases, PG&E'* total annual budgeted amount fbr undergrounding within any city or VO uninaorporstsd area of any county stall be allocated in the same retlo that the number of overhead meters in the city or unincorporated area of any county bears to the total system overhead Met". s. The amounts allocated in accordance with Section 2 a, b, C, or d may be exceeded where 1906E establelm that additional paMdpatlon an a project is warranted. Ouch allocated amounts may be carried over for a reasonable period of time in communitles with active undergrounding programs. In order to quality as a community with an active undergrounding program the goveming body must have adopted an ordinance or ordinances creating an underground district and/or districts as set forth In Section A.1.b. of this Rule. Where there is a carry-over, PG&E has the right to set, as determ;ned by Its capability, town" Imp on the rate of pettormance of the work to be financed by the funds carried over. When amounts are not expended or carried over for the comnwnity to which they are iriltlslly slocated they shall be assigned when additional perlicipatlion on a project is warranted or be reallocated to communities with active undergr0unding programs. 3. The undwWounctng extends for a rranirtlum distance of one Most or SM feet, whichever is the lesser. Upon request of the governing body, PG&E wDl pay for the instsllation of no more then 100 feet of each customees underground electric service lateral occasioned by the unde%rounding, The gooveming body mey establish a smaller footage allowance, or rney Omit the amount of money to be expended on a single customer's electric service. or the total amount to be expended on all electric service installations bt a particular project. (Continued) Advice calla No. 130" Issued by Cate filW .lure T. , Qa� Decision No. 90-05- 2 Go?"" R dnNUi Efho�rNe �upr � r_1 /roe PANWent Raedutle++ No. 22" 2 FkWm* and AWw 04/ 2111999 03: 13 650-343-1778 CHURCH PAGE F17 iAFR 20 ' 99 12: 31 wR FrAE 5F CALL CENTER 415 28: 6261 TO 9/65034317r-8*51 R. C6/0' ReytMd Col. P. U.0 Sh"t No. 1 S811-E heft a" VW chwt* Cvrnpeny G&ReeNfinf Reviled Cat P.U.C. MOW No 11243-E Ban F,u,arevo. GNton+�e B. In circumstances other than those covered by A above, P"E will replace Its existing overhead electric feNities with underground electric facilities along puWIc streets and roads or other localions mutually agreed upon when requested by an applicant or applicants when all of the foliowkrg condlilons are met: I. a. All property owners served from the overhead facilities to be removed nret agree In writing to have the wiring changes made on their premises so that service may be furnished from the underground distribution system In e000rdence with IMOM's rules arld Mat PG&E may dlsoontlnus Its overhead service upon Completion of the underWound facilities: or b. Suitable legislation is in effect requifrtng such neoesseiy wiring changes to be made and suthortxing PG&E to discontinue Its ova hood service. 2. The applicant has, a. Furnished and installed the pads and vaults for transformers and associatod equipment, conduits, duds, boxes, pole bases and performed older work related to struchuss and sutxtructures Wuding brooking of pavement trat ing, bacidilling, and repaving rwMmd in connactlon with the installation of the underWound system, all In accoroonce with PG&E's spsdftations, or, in lieu thereof, paid PG&E to do so: D. Transferred ownership of such faclittles, In good condition, to PG&E; and C. Paid a nonrefundable sum equal 10 the exams. if any, of the estimated (T) costs, of cornpleting the underground system and building a new equivalent ov,ofted system. 3. The area to be undergrounded inciu in both sides of a street for at least one block or 600 teat, Whichever is the lesser, and all existing overhead torlmunicetian and electric distribution fsdpbees wfthin the area will be removed. (Continued) I OW" L~ M0, 1766E fsawdoy DW Paercr Mav ] i_ ts48 DWS10n lee. 97-12-M "Mm" 9. 81091WAV Elfrc" We Prsatw" AWWA06M hb. 28802 P4008 A A COWd SWVOWS 04/21/1999 09:10 650-343-1778 CHURCH P4GE 03 HWK E0 ' wg 12; 32 FP. F%E 3F CALL CEN'EK 415 281 6261 TO 916:03431776w51 P. i07/07 Revbad cal. P. U G SAW No. 11244.E IWft 6" and FJearrlc Ow"" Cancoft Rwv*W Cal. P. U.C. SAeet No. 6229-E San Fra=*W, 0000MAs C. In circumstances other than those covered by A or 19 above, when mutually agreed upon by PG&E and an applicant, overhead **We fadlities may be replaced with underground el"ric facilities, provided the appkant requesting the change pays. In sdvance, a nonreflundable sum equal to r w estimated cost of the undarprourld facilities less the estimated net salvage value and deprodadon of the replaced ovetand facilities. Underground services will be installed and maintained as provided In PG&E's rules applicable thereto. 0. The term *underground eiectic system" meens an electftc system with ail wires installed underground, except Norse wires in surface mounted equipment enclosures. Advmv Leftr Ne. 1300-F Deafft" No. 0" -Q32 22114 issued by Ogden it awl* Fk0wo ono Rohs Date FNed Efreadve 17 1 Revoklovn NO. - - ** TOTAL PAGE.07 ** { tx ne 1 i i { 1.C lNytjk S h F % issues and concerns Vgarding the removal of trees by PG&E along California :y Drive: • What are the impacts to the environment resulting from this course of action? Has an EIP (Environmental Impact Study) been performed? • The removal of these treeswould result in an increase of noise from Caltrans to the people of California Drive as well as the surrounding areas. Has there been any study regarding this issue. It is worth pointing out that San Francisco International Airport has been taking steps to reduce the noise level from the airplanes to the surrounding areas i.e. providing sound proof windows to the effected residences and Caltrans has been building walls around highways to shield communities from traffic noise. The trees along East Side of California Drive act as a natural sound barrier to a certain degree. • Whaf are the effects of soil erosion due to removal of these trees? The removal of these trees would likely increase the dust level in the adjacent areas. • What does this do to storm and rainwater drainage? • At a time that the elimination and reduction of green space is a well -documented detriment to the environment, the idea of removing these trees raises serious concerns. • In light of these questions and serious concerns, it seems that PG&E's work for maintaining (trimming) of these trees is well worth the effort. Also PG&E has been undergrounding a lot of their overhead lines. Has PG&E looked into this option or rerouting the lines away from the trees? The residents of California Drive and the surrounding streets expect that our City government including the Mayor and other elected officials to be actively involved in this very serious issue facing the City of Burlingame and oppose this plan of action by PG&E. A lea to save trees near tracks Residents want city to pay to underground wires b� Abaco More than a dozen Burlingame residents spoke out at a recent Beautification Commission meeting against a pro- posal by PG&E to remove nearly 90 Casuarina trees that line California Avenue. At the May 3 public meeting residents, who live on and around California Avenue, responded to PG&E's recent announcement that it wants to remove the trees on the east side of California between Broadway and Dufferin avenues.- &E said the trees are old and have to be constantly maimed to keep them from growing into the power lines along the street. "We are pursuing the removal (because) they are fast- growing, they are encroaching on the lines and we are required to remove trees near lines," said Chris Hughes, a PG&E representative. People attending the hearing expressed their frustration that PG&E wants to remove the natural sound barrier between their homes and the railroad tracks. They also encouraged the commission to recommend that the trees remain in place. "The quality of our lives would be most seriously impact- ed by the removal (of the trees)," said resident Geraldine McConnell. She added that PG&E told her it had no plans to replace any of the Casuarina trees. "I feel the trees and bushes were put there as a screen and a barrier," said Harriette Fitzpatrick, another resident. "We need that for the privacy and as a noise barrier." "Obviously, overwhelmingly, people do not want them removed," said Commissioner President Will McGowan. The commission recommended the that trees remain, even though it has no say in the matter. Although the trees are within Burlingame city limits, they sit on property owned by the San Francisco Water Department, and the agency can give PG&E the green light to remove the trees, according to city officials. Residents urged to commission to pursue funds from PG&E to place the utility lines along California under- ground, eliminating the need to remove the trees. According to PG&E documents, cities are eligible for what TREM page 4A IN.. TREES: City discusses cpt1"'5 Continued from 1A is called rule 20 money, funds set aside to replace "existing over- heard electric facilities with underground electric facilities along public streets and roads." "We allocate money every year to cities," said Patty Healy, PG&E pro- ject manager. "These projects cost about $1 million per mile." WNddly said ohte"a city determines jb x!,Jt _wa.pts utility, wires moved underground, the area is "evaluat- ed to determine if the project qual- ifies." PG&E allocates money if the pro- ject meets one of three criteria: -Such undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead electric facilities; -The street or road is extensively used by the general public; -The street adjoins or passes through a civic area or public recreation area. Healy said that when it comes to undergrounding utility lines, PG&E does not actively approach cities with projects in mind but leaves it up to the municipalities to initiate such projects. City Engineer Frank Erbacher said that right now, Burlingame has nearly $1.5 million allocated from PG&E to help pay for under - grounding. "As long as it quali- fies, we do what the city wants," he said. Erbacher added that right now Airport Boulevard is the only capi- tal project tapped for under - grounding and that project would cost $2 million to complete. City Manager Dennis Argyres said Burlingame has already put utility lines underground along California Avenue between Burlingame and Broadway avenues. The city has considered undergrounding all the way to Dufferin Avenue, but had not fully explored the idea, he said. Part of the problem is that PG&E tends to discourage allocating money for such projects in resi- dential neighborhoods. He added that because Burlingame does not own the property in question, it would need the cooperation of PG&E as well as the water depart- ment. "It makes (qualifying for funds) much more difficult," Argyres said. "We are hoping PG&E got the message and will pursue other options." Both Mayor Mary Janney and Councilmember Joe Galligan said the council has already met with the Beautification Commission and were told of the PG&E plans. "The thought was to maintain the property value on California (Avenue)," Galligan said of the meeting. Janney said there is also talk of "pursuing a new treatment that is non -toxic, that inhibits the growth of the trees while enhanc- ing its bulk." Parks Superintendent Tim Richmond said there has been talk of using a product called "Profile" on the trees, which is applied to the ground and absorbed through tree roots. "It retards the tip (of trees)," he said. "It makes the leaves a little April 26, 1999 Richard P. Quadr City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame i avenue Burlingame, Ca 114010 Dear Richard, I am writing to re luest an extension of our tree removal and replacement permit at 1446 Capuchin Avenue in Burlingame. We are currently remodeling our home wid our yard is filled with lumber, once construction is complete we v ill clean-up the debris and plant a tree per your rec iuirements. Nk., Please let me kno tv if there is any other information you need in order to grsnt this request. You ma; • contact me at (650)342-1770 X15. TJ tank you in advance; for your assistance. Sincerely, Juli A. Devincenz i Zoo(n OHS IMINENHONV 9LIT Zfi£ 9T6 YVJ £T:tT MU 66/LZ/tO f a CITY OF BTRLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT850 Burlingame Avenue, Burliname, California 94010-2899Tele hone 650 696-3770 - Parks/ Trees 650 696-7245 Fax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: burtrec@aol.com^- t y-F-99 4. .*March 2, 1999 Juli & Steve Devincenzi 1446 Capuchino Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REPLACEMENT OF 1 BIRCH TREE @ 1446 CAPUCHINO AVENUE - BURLINGAME The extension of your tree removal and replacement permit will expire on Apri18, 1999. Please notify the Parks Division of the planting of 1 - 24" box replacement tree so that we can schedule an inspection. Please note that no further extension can be granted without Commission approval. If you have any questions, contact the Park Division at (415) 696-7245. Sincerely, Richard P. Quadri Sr. Landscape Inspector RPQ/kh e_� P E R M I T A P P L I C A T I O N Protected Tree Removal or Pruning Burlingame Park Department 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 696-7245 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address 14A"b print or type 0 TREE CM USA hereby applies for permission to remove, or prune more than 1/3 of the crown for roots of the following protected ttree(s): Species Wf au (°�. Circumference (�� 1 Location on property Work to be performed Reason work is necessary (Use back of form for additional comments) _ NOTE: PLEASE SUBMIT OWNER PHOTOGRAPH OF TREE WITH THIS APPLICATION SIGNAT ADDREE APPROVED k_ DENIED PHONE (b ( ) (written appeal must be received by ) CONDITIONS: IGCPN �7 O4�1e_ Fu �lJOX -S/�� i r i aw I et-,) 0104. Date - Expires - �1 Sr. Landscape Inspector �sjob site J permit must be available at ' P at all times when work is being done. r Date: April 14, 1999 To: Beautification Commission �- From: R. Quadri - Sr. Landscape Inspector Re: Protected Tree Removal - 524 El Camino Real The owner of the property at 524 El Camino Real has applied for a permit to remove six protected Eucalyptus trees. These trees are part of a row of approximately a dozen trees between the applicant's apartment building and a new 34 unit condominium development at 530 El Camino. During the permit process for the condo project, I required that the developer obtain an arborist report that would evaluate the impact of construction on these trees and propose mitigating measures for their protection (arborist report attached): The developer is following the recommended measures. I have discussed alternatives with the applicant, including removal of the trees that are not covered by the Tree Protection ordinance and pruning of those that remain. While he is considering these options, he has asked that we proceed with the application process. I therefore recommend that the Beautification Commission schedule a public hearing during the regular meeting of June 3, 1999 to determine if this permit should be issued. LETTER # 6 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 LICENSED FORESTERS • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS KENNETH D. MEYER 23 SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE PRESIDENT P.O. BOX 522 SAN MATEO, CA 94401 RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON VICE PRESIDENT July 23, 1992 TELEPHONE: (415) 344-3S60 FAX: (415) 344-984S Attn: Minny:_ Habitat Construction 800 Airport Blvd., Suite 518 Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED NOV 06 1998 BUILDING DEPT. Dear Minny: CITY OF BURLINGAME On Wednesday, July 22, I inspected a row of eucalyptus along the south property line of 530 El Camino Real in Burlingame. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate impacts and -.propose mitigating maintenance and protection from the planned construction. The trees range in size from an eight inch diameter sprout to a thirty inch diameter tree, with an average height of sixty feet. The north side has paving that comes -up to the trunks and completely covers the root zones. It is proposed to excavate down about ten feet at a distance of nine feet from the trees. This excavation will remove all northern roots at this point. This could be, significant, as prevailing winds come from the north and west directions. This excavation, however, may not be _as. significant to tree support as stated . above. The trees may have adapted to previous paving repairs which may have resulted in the removal of several roots, and/or past pruning which has reduced wind resistance. Without information verifying this, I will not make any assumptions. I believe root cutting at the nine foot distance is significant, and there should be no construction any closer than this, except for the removal of the existing paving. Care should be taken during the excavation and paving removal, so that damage to the remaining roots is minimized. This can be done by carefully pulling soil or paving away from the trees, not across the roots. All roots should be cut by hand and not by excavation equipment. The cut roots should be covered with two or three layers of untreated burlap and watered daily. �- I further recommend removing weight on the south and west sides and thinning to help offset probable loss of support from root cutting. The cut roots should be inspected to determine if more severe measure are needed. Habitat 7-23-92, P. 2 Tree protection during construction is important. This is best done by installing a fence around the trees at least five feet from the trunks, with nothing allowed inside this fenced area. Following the previously mentioned excavation guidelines will help reduce damage. NOTE: See also the attached guidelines for mitigating construction impacts. MAINTENANCE: 1) Lighten south and east sides and thin. Haul away all debris and wood. This would cost $1300. 2) Deep root fertilize with 500 gallons, after paving is removed, and repeat annually for five years. The initial application would be $270. I believe this report to be accurate and based on sound arboricultural practices. Sincerely, .{ �•� :! ; -awl :,.�i _-„q Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborist WCISA #19 RLH:dcr ENC: Mitigating Measures For Construction Impacts %r "1 "'1 PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650)696-7245 The undersigned owner of the property at: ADDRESS: _',L C a TREE CM USA (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more that 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES r&J C,RL U T� ,S CIRCUMFERENCEAW'*-�� y8 Of LOCATION ON PROPERTY . S WORK TO BE PERFORMED Remade- TRees REASON WORK IS NECESSARY To use NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION s whe& u) ii al comments OWNER IiF_IVI ADDRESS ,;:�F o ,/ PHONE ,5Z U PERMIT This permit allows the applicant 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 acknowledges 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 -ems J CITY REPRESENTATIVE CONDITIONS DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES `. A copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed