Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2023.11.02CITY v 0 ticow � � rPORATED Thursday, November 2, 2023 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda Beautification Commission 6:30 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Burlingame Community Center 850 Burlingame Avenue Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. The meeting video will be uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to parksadmin@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the Beautification Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 PM on November 2, 2023. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 PM deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Beautification Commission after the meeting. You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: Nov 2, 2023 06:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Topic: Burlingame Beautification Commission Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86473655744? pwd=aE5WaE1 TQWgvYjl2QTFtY05keHZiZz09 Passcode:543134 Or One tap mobile +16694449171 „86473655744#,,,,*543134# US +16699006833„86473655744#,,,,*543134# US (San Jose) Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 253 205 0468 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) Webinar ID: 864 7365 5744 Passcode:543134 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdtMhyyXNI City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1012712023 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda November 2, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES a. Draft Minutes October 5. 2023 Attachments: Draft Minutes 4. CORRESPONDENCE 5. FROM THE FLOOR Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Continuation of the Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. Attachments: Staff Report 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Update to Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation) Attachments: Staff Report 8. REPORTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting: November 2, 2023 Notice. Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1012712023 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda November 2, 2023 City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1012712023 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes October 5, 2023 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chair Bauer. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Bauer, Commissioner Batte, Chu, Khoury, and Kirchner Absent: None Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Holtz, Parks Supervisor Burow, and Recording Secretary Flores Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Batte made a motion to approve the August 3, 2023, Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Chu and was approved 5-0-0. CORRESPONDENCE None. PUBLIC COMMENT Director Glomstad introduced new staff member, America Diaz, who will assist the Parks Division for the next few months. OLD BUSINESS 1. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update Commissioner Kirchner reported that the Washington Park chapter of the Trees of Burlingame book has not been completed but is a priority. He explained that he is working on gathering photos and encouraged the rest of the Commissioners to provide any they may have. Further, Commissioner Kirchner asked the Commission for their opinion on including a map of the themed streets. Commissioner Batte asked if there was a list of the current themed blocks. Commissioner Kirchner confirmed there is a list of themed streets and trees. He suggested a map with a key so that readers could identify streets numerically or alphabetically. Lastly, he spoke about the different printing options and confirmed it would remain the same five by 7-inch size as the previous edition. NEW BUSINESS 1. Watering of the Newly Planted Street Trees Commissioner Chu stated that he had seen many leafless young trees that appeared dead from inadequate water. He would like to know what measures the City and the citizens can take to reduce tree mortality, especially in newly planted trees that need more water in the first couple of years. He stated that although the responsibility of watering young trees falls on the property owners who live by the tree, it would be helpful to have passers-by report the tree to the City so they can inspect the tree. Chair Bauer communicated that City Arborist Holtz was present via Zoom and Parks Supervisor Burow would be presenting the staff report. Parks Supervisor Burow presented the staff report and agreed that she had seen some deaths in newly planted trees due to a lack of watering from property owners. She stated this was especially true during the drought in the past few years. She stated that last season's significant rain helped immensely, and she noticed more leaves on trees, and the oak trees produced more acorns, which are all good signs. Parks Supervisor Burow stated that the City hired additional staff to assist with the watering of the trees. This year, there were two part-time City employees whose sole job was to water the trees throughout the City. Parks Supervisor Burow said she would like to focus on getting the public to assist with watering. She stated she used social media such as Instagram and Facebook to address the importance of watering, but it is unknown how much of that got through to residents or how many people it would reach. She thought that people who interacted with the Tree Crew and/or the Commissioners about the importance of watering the trees would most likely be more involved. Parks Supervisor Burow pointed out that one reason could be that most people do not water trees due to the cost of higher water bills. Another reason could be some people did not want a tree where it was planted. Lastly, she added that some people believe the trees do not need extra water, which is not true for the younger trees. She said they need consistent watering for about three to four years and cannot live only from winter rains. The first four years might be more costly, but it would benefit everybody in the community in the long run. She provided some educational opportunities that City staff did in the past. She also noted that she appreciated when people called to notify the City that trees look dry. Parks Supervisor Burow added she would like to educate the public and homeowners about the benefits versus cost and identify opportunities to talk about the subject at public events and make signs. City Arborist Holtz appreciated Commissioner Chu for raising this issue for discussion. He agreed with the suggestion of tabling at events to further engage with the community and answer questions about parks and trees. City Arborist Holtz stated that studies show it takes seven years for a tree to be a net benefit to the community; however, in an urban environment, the average age of a tree is seven years. City Arborist Holtz stated that the City is a community of trees and wanted to continue to engage with the community. He stated that education over the years was noted in the staff report. He asked the Commissioners for their ideas to raise awareness. Commissioner Chu inquired about events the Commissioners could volunteer for. Director Glomstad suggested the Fall Fest and stated that volunteers were needed and welcomed the Commissioners to join staff. She also stated that the Landscape Award presentation would be an opportunity. Further, she explained that the Winter Market is scheduled for December 2 and 3, and the Commissioners could have a table and materials to pass out and engage with the community. 2. Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. Parks Supervisor Burow provided a summary of the application process for the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree located at 1134 Douglas Ave. She explained that the majority of the tree base resides on 1134 Douglas Ave. however, it grows at a slant, and most of the canopy is on 1132 Douglas Ave. The application for the removal of a protected tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. was approved by the City Arborist due to the form of the tree leaning and significantly growing on 1132 Douglas Ave. as well as implications on the fence and driveway. Parks Supervisor Burow stated that although the tree has good vigor and good structure, poor form was the reason for allowing the tree's removal. The lean is severe and is creating an off -balance canopy. The upper branches lean significantly atop the roof of 1132 Douglas Ave., and the tree has overgrown its space. Parks Supervisor Burow stated that the appeal was due to the tree softening the area and an approved yet - to -build development (the project was abandoned in 2019). In addition, another oak tree on the adjacent property died, and the tree added to the overall beauty and shade of 1132 Douglas Ave. The tenant at 1132 Douglas Ave. offered to take over maintenance responsibilities and liabilities. City Arborist Holtz also noted the liability to the property owner if the tree were to remain. The liability exists because most of the trunk base is on 1134 Douglas Ave., and the trunk, not the canopy, dictates ownership. He noted that pruning the tree to not have an exaggerated lean would trim more than typically recommended by industry practice. City Arborist Holtz stated the applicant was concerned about the driveway and fence. He said that driveways and fences are not considered in the Municipal Code as a reason for removal. Commissioner Kirchner questioned if the oak tree dropped limbs occasionally or if it was a stable tree. City Arborist Holtz stated that oak trees are known for having strong and high ratings of branch attachments compared to other species, but that doesn't mean that they cannot have a structural defect that is not visible. He stated this tree may have lost structural integrity as it appears that the roof of 1132 Douglas Ave. is supporting it. He told the Commission that the tree has had little to no maintenance from either property owner. Correcting the situation, preventing any damage to the roof, and going with fire guidelines (trimming vegetation away from roof lines) would require removing a significant amount of canopy and live tissue. Chair Bauer questioned if the pruning of the canopy where the tree touches the house/roof would cause the tree to come down. City Arborist Holtz stated that he could not answer that for certain. One challenge is the dense canopy has shaded out interior foliage. There may not be a specific branch to cut to. When performing heading cuts or reduction pruning, it is important to cut to a branch that is at least one-third of the diameter of the branch that you are cutting to, and because Coast Live Oak trees have such dense canopies, there is not a lot of interior growth. Ideally, there should be a 10-foot clearance from the roof line. He said 30% to 40% of the canopy would have to be removed to achieve this goal. City Arborist Holtz stated they would have a lot of stub cuts, a cut to a branch without a lateral branch. The branch would be a stub, and the tree would push out waterspouts and would require annual pruning to train the tree. He said that, in his opinion, this is an extraordinary requirement for the owner of the tree. He stated there had been verbal conversations between the parties but was unaware of any agreement. He noted that after speaking with the City Attorney, liability could not be reassigned to 1132 Douglas Ave. They could take over the maintenance of the tree, but the liability would remain on 1134 Douglas Ave. as the owner of the tree. Commissioner Khoury questioned the aesthetics of the tree and whether the removal of 30% of the branches would still be aesthetically pleasing. City Arborist Holtz stated that the tree would not look the same and agreed with Commissioner Khoury that the tree in its current condition is a healthy, vigorous tree but has poor form with lean and significant growth over 1132 Douglas Ave. Commissioner Khoury asked about the age of the tree. City Arborist Holtz estimated the tree to be about 50-70 years old. He stated it did not appear to be a tree that was intentionally planted. Chair Bauer opened the floor to public comment from parties not part of the action. Burlingame resident stated that perhaps the tree could get pruned and observed. If the tree does not grow to the desired position, then take the tree down. She thought the tree was a beautiful heritage tree and brought joy. She stated she watched the tree grow and feels the tree should get a chance to get trimmed and see how it reacts before it gets removed. John Root, the first appellant, stated that he supported retaining the oak tree at 1132/1134. He stated that a 27-unit, five -story building was approved for 1128 — 1132 Douglas Ave. in 2016-2017. Three large trees were at the front of the large property: two oak trees and one Redwood tree. He stated one oak tree had died, and if the tree was removed, it would only leave one tree on the lot. He asked for consideration to retain the oak tree as it is special. Lisa Brady, the second appellant, is the tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave. and has lived there for 13 years. She stated she got ill and could not spend the money on the landscaping like she used to. The oak tree has become a friend to her and provides shade for cooling. She stated everyone in the community loves that tree. Ms. Brady stated that she told her landlord, Henry, who lives in China most of the year, that she would take the financial burden and that the tree could come down if it didn't work out. Dion Heffran, the Respondent, stated he is not emotional about the tree. The tree was fine when it wasn't leaning much and started to deform the fence. He stated the tree was falling slowly. He offered that perhaps the rain did it last year, and he got concerned about the threat to life or limb and his liability. Mr. Heffran said that he did not want to be responsible for liability and spoke to an Attorney. He estimated the tree had been there for more than 70 years. He stated that Ms. Brady has done nothing to care for the tree over the past 14 years. Mr. Heffran stated he felt it is partially Ms. Brady's fault that he must spend $5,000.00 to remove the tree and does not want any liability. Commissioner Chu questioned if the tree was literally on the line. City Arborist Holtz clarified that 90% of the tree, which is the canopy, was over 1132 Douglas Ave. Tree ownership is taken at the base of the tree, and whoever has over 50% of the tree base is the owner. He stated the City staff are not surveyors. Mr. Heffran claimed ownership of the tree, and no one from 1132/1128 Douglas Ave. protested that he was the rightful owner. At this time, there is no dispute on the ownership. Chair Bauer stated that whoever owns the tree has the liability. If the tree were to fall and cause damage, the owner of the tree was liable. Commissioner Batte questioned if 1132 Douglas Ave. was taking liability. Chair Bauer stated yes; however, Ms. Brady, at 1132 Douglas Ave., is a tenant and not an owner of the property. The owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. is in China. She stated she was unsure if the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. could legally take responsibility for the tree. Commissioner Chu asked if a resident applied to remove a tree and the City denied it or if there is an appeal and the Commission approved the appeal, does liability remain with the homeowner? He stated it would seem unjust for the liability to remain on the owner because they tried to have it removed. City Arborist Holtz explained that he could not get into details due to Attorney -Client privilege conversations, but that was what the property owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. referred to in his conversation with his Attorney. Chair Bauer stated that it either needs to be pruned, and it is unknown what would be left, or it must be removed. City Arborist Holtz mentioned that a property owner can prune up to 25% of their neighbor's tree over their property line, as long as it doesn't cause tree failure or health issues. Commissioner Batte asked if this must be addressed immediately. City Arborist Holtz stated that this situation was not an imminent risk based on the observations out in the field. Commission Kirchner stated that he was unsure that the future care of the tree could be assigned to the adjacent property owner. He agreed it is a great tree and felt it was unfair to burden the property owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. with the liability. Chair Bauer stated she is concerned about the owner's liability even though the tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave. stated she would be responsible. Since the property owner wasn't there, the Commission couldn't ask his opinion. She said that she agreed with Commissioner Kirchner. Commissioner Batte stated she was concerned about dealing with the tenant of 1132 Douglas Ave. and not the property owner. She said that the tenant can't legally be responsible because they do not own property and is concerned for the owner of 1134 Douglas Ave. and the legal liability. She agreed with Commissioner Kirchner. Ms. Brady questioned if they could get an extension so she could contact her landlord, the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave., to see if he would accept the liability. Chair Bauer stated they could postpone the decision until the next meeting, but she questioned what it would accomplish. She stated they have the Municipal Code to guide approving or denying a removal, including disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways, other trees, leaning on house, interfering with public utilities, etc. Commissioner Chu stated that City Arborist Holtz mentioned there was no dispute in ownership of the tree but questioned if the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. is aware of the proceedings. Ms. Brady stated she emailed the documents to the owner, who is in China, and his sister confirmed he received them. She stated they would like to do a survey to determine ownership of the tree. City Arborist Holtz stated that if there were a dispute of ownership, the parties would need to hire a licensed surveyor to mark exactly where the property line was. Commissioner Chu stated he would like to move the matter to next month's meeting, given that there is no imminent risk of failure. Chair Bauer questioned if they are postponing to see if the owner will accept responsibility for the tree and survey. Commissioner Batte inquired whether the Commission needs to hear from the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. to see if he will pick up the cost for the survey. Ms. Brady texted the property owner, stating she would take responsibility for the cost of the survey. Director Glomstad stated the parties should return with proof of ownership and a letter from the owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. accepting liability. Commissioner Chu made a motion to postpone the agenda item until the November 2, 2023, Beautification Commission Meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Khoury and approved 5-0-0. REPORTS Director Glomstad reported that the City Council decided to keep the Lemon Scented Gum theme species on Easton Dr. She stated that the Muddy Mile is scheduled for Saturday, October 21, 2023, the Fall Fest will take place on Sunday, October 29, 2023, the Tree Lighting is scheduled for Friday, December 1, 2023, and the Winter Craft Fair scheduled for December 2 and 3. Lastly, a presentation for the Business and Residential Landscape Awards will take place at the October 16, 2023 City Council Meeting. Commissioner Chu and Commissioner Koury both agreed to present the PowerPoint and awards. CWIIIII Mid IN " There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:35 pm. The next Beautification Commission meeting is scheduled for November 2, 2023. Respectfully submitted, -America Pin Z America Diaz Administrative Staff BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: November 2, 2023 From: Richard Holtz, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Subject: Continuation of the Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the City Arborist's Approval of the Removal of a Protected Private Tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission review the City Arborist's decision to approve the removal of a privately protected tree at 1134 Douglas Ave. A decision from the Commission shall be made to uphold or reject the City Arborist's decision. BACKGROUND On September 5, 2023, the City Arborist visited 1134 Douglas Ave. to view a private protected tree. The visit was taken shortly after receiving a call regarding a private tree that could fall. Upon viewing the site, it was determined the tree did not appear to need immediate removal under the emergency authorization. The property owner subsequently submitted a Private Tree Removal Application. The City Arborist approved the removal in accordance with the City's Municipal Code section 11.06.060, which allows removal for the following reasons: (d) (1) the condition of the tree with respect to the proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveway, and other trees... and, (d) (7) the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. The tree is growing in a non -ideal location on the property line between 1132 and 1134 Douglas Ave. Asphalt covers the entire growing space on the 1134 Douglas Ave. side of the tree. Evidence of asphalt heaving is apparent, though no fresh cracking is visible. It appeared a recent asphalt repair was made. Additionally, the 1134 Douglas Ave. side of the tree had been heavily pruned, likely to have accommodated significant construction approximately 12 years ago. This left the tree significantly out of balance and leaning over the and on the residence of 1132 Douglas Ave. The tree branches appeared to be supporting the tree's weight by leaning heavily atop the residence's roof at 1132 Douglas Ave. It is unknown if the tree could support itself in the absence of this support. The City Arborist confirmed the infrastructure conflict, limited growing space, and significant trunk lean and off -balance pruning. All of these site conditions contribute to a greater likelihood of failure. Several attempts were made by City staff to reach the property owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. All were unsuccessful. Appeal of protected Tree Removal at 1134 Douglas Ave. October 5, 2023 Site Conditions The Coast Live Oak exists on a shared property line between 1132 and 1134 Douglas Ave. It appeared that the tree's growing point (base of trunk) resides by a majority on the 1134 Douglas Ave. property. Despite this, more than 90% of the trunk and tree branches exist over the property space of 1132 Douglas Ave. Branches from this tree extend 10' over 1134 Douglas Ave and over 30' over 1132 Douglas Ave. This increases the weight loading of the tree further into the direction of the lean (Exhibit A). The canopy of this tree is very dense. The United States Fire Prevention Administration recommends trimming branches that overhang structures at least 10' away. Achieving the recommended pruning of 10' and reducing end weight on elongated branches over 1132 Douglas Ave would significantly remove much of the tree canopy, with difficulty finding appropriate branches to prune back to. Appellants The removal of this tree affects 1132 Douglas Ave. to a greater degree by loss of privacy, shade, and the aesthetic beauty of the tree. The appellant, Lisa Brady, is a longtime resident of 1132 Douglas Ave. Ms. Brady is not the property owner but does state she is entrusted with the upkeep of the property on the owner's behalf. Ms. Brady has communicated to the applicant that she would like to take over maintenance and liabilities associated with the tree. Ms. Brady's goal would be to preserve the tree if a certified arborist report states preservation is feasible. An additional appeal has been received by John Root of 1133 Douglas Ave. Mr. Root shared his concern with the removal of this tree as it would soften the look of future development. The owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. also owns the adjacent parcel at 1128 Douglas Ave. Development plans dating back to 2015 have been approved to develop a 27-unit, five -story building on the two properties. Due to inactivity since 2019, the Planning Division approval has expired, and the process must begin anew. Mr. Root notes that other trees that had been screening the property have died, and further loss of vegetation would create a much more imposing presence should development occur as had been proposed. Beautification Commission Review At the October 5, 2023 Beautification Commission meeting, the appeal was discussed at length. Several community members spoke in protest of the proposed tree removal. The reasons cited were the importance of trees, the tree's healthy appearance, its screening effect on the property from neighbors, and the emotional attachment that Lisa Brady, the renter at 1332 Douglas Ave., has with the tree. Appellant Lisa Brady has offered to take over maintenance responsibilities for the tree, citing the significant funds she has invested into the home she rents to beautify it. The applicant also spoke, stating his concern about the liability if the tree remained. He stated the property owner would likely not favor maintaining the tree considering his lack of upkeep at 1132 and 1128 Douglas Ave. He stated that he has also tried to reach the property owner but has received no response. Ms. Brady requested the Commission grant her time to get a letter of support from the property owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. She also stated she was going to research the property line to ensure the tree was not owned by 1132 Douglas Ave. 2 Appeal of protected Tree Removal at 1134 Douglas Ave. October 5, 2023 The Commission voted to postpone the decision to November to allow the parties time to gather more information for the Commission. DISCUSSION The Commission needs to determine if the applicant has met the threshold for protected tree removal as required by the City's Tree Ordinance. The issue of who could or should maintain the tree is a private matter and not under the purview of the Beautification Commission or the City and should not be part of the decision -making process. The applicant and appellant can reach an agreement outside of the appeal process at any time. Ms. Brady requested time to determine the legal property line to ensure the tree had the majority of its base growing on the applicant's side at 1134 Douglas Ave. The issue of ownership was never included in the appeal letters. Unless a site plan shows the majority of the trunk growing on 1132 Douglas Ave. or the property owner of 1132 Douglas Ave. contests ownership, the Commission should decide on the appeal. EXHIBIT A. Site Photos B. Tree Removal Application C. Appeal Letter 3 ! Y t l' ,� �•`? �J rtFT yr - �+- V•?! ?• � -lam_ dF L 11R I U41' l alVVILL t 0'r 1 Fa r � ac ke(, 14,-� 5 EXHIBIT B V--6+1A-f1Vrf . 1 0 t', � 1 Private Protected Tree Removal Permit Application Burlingame Parks Division -*16-8urlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650-558-73301 parksadmin@burtingame.org Permit Policies Please click here to read the Private Protected Tree Permit Guidelines (http://cros6.revize.corrVrevizelbu d ingamecity/burlingameparksandrer,s/document_ renterffrees/Private%20Protected%2OTree%2OPerrnit%a2CAppli initial below to indicate you understand the conditions of applying for this permit. Per the City ordinance 11.06.02, a protected tree is any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade. If approved. the Private Protected Tree Removal Permit requires planting a 24" box size single stem landscape tree(s) (no fruit. nut, or cypress) anywhere on the private property. Applicant's initials * I have read the Protected Tree Permit Guidelines and agree to the conditions - Initial here. a Applicant Information Date * gr' et -1,0Z,3 Property Owner's First Name' 'DtvA4 Property Owner's Last Name f 4 e 1= r-TA14 Property Owner's Phone Number Please enter number as indicated (555) 555-5555 Property Owner's email'ra S� C yLjat' ► CpW( � J Street Number Street Name L01 0�4y ! v EXHIBIT B Property Owner's Address {if different than property address) Street Address Address Line 2 City 6VP_ G 1PCAM Postal / Zip Code Free irltormadon How many trees need removing? Species04g, Select Tree Species from the Rropdown list below Circumference: ' 36 f, Circumference of the tree most be more that 48" Work to be performed KRemoval Trim More Than 1 /3 of Crown G Other Location on property el Si e Back Other State I Province 1 Region C4. Country D Alt rztt Reason Work is Necessary 8 A! f N N f NG 73 L MN I 4f5 Rii�'j,4e'D if e evr Or ALi� t�,ur 1S •4 hC�i4r mN � 4/.kBo,�A ,yr Please provide additional details for why the tree needF;7;7-,6 g. Mt t u1 � � tg(r �oG� &K Is this part of a building project? O Yes jj�No EXHIBIT B Photograph(s) and Schematics A photograph of the trees) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) in relation to the street and structure are required. Additional documentation might be required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.) * You may upload more than one file by clicking upload again. A total maximum of 15MB can be uploaded - please resize your photos if necessary. Upload Signature €t Payment Application language Tne undersigned owner of the property hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more that 113 of the canopy of the following protected trees(s) and has read and agrees to the conditions of a Private Protected Tree Remov Perrot Application_ Slemt re' 11 i { i 9 Payment A 51A 5107� required for atl Protected Tree Permit Applicatiom S 1G7,CO EXHIBIT C September 22, 2023 Richard Holtz, Park Supervisor City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Holtz, My wife and I have lived at Douglas Avenue, Unit for 11 years. Several years ago in 2017, a multi -unit, five story apartment building was proposed and approved for 1128-1132 Douglas Avenue.. During the application process public input was sought and received and an extensive EIR was prepared and approved. The trees on the property played a significant part in the discussion and acceptance by the Planning Commission and City Council. We suggest selective pruning should be done of the tree in question prior to considering removal. The large trees on the site softened the imposing presence of the proposed building. At that time I do not remember strong objections whether by Douglas residents or the EIR suggesting the tree in question should be removed. In the proposal the developer planned to demolish the 100+ year old house at the 1132 Douglas address to accommodate the new construction. Saving/supporting the tree in question should be considered. The death of the large, old oak tree on the easterly edge of the property which borders 1128 Douglas has made the consequences of the request even more significant. There was extensive Council discussion of a redwood tree adjacent to the deceased oak. These three trees played a significant role in the discussions and project approval. The removal of the tree in question reduces that number to one. Please consider this letter an appeal for further consideration prior to your proposed action. John S.Root Douglas Avenue EXHIBIT C PARKS/REC-Veronica Flores From: PARKS -Richard Holtz Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 4:14 PM To: Lisa Brady Cc: Parks Admin Subject: RE: Appeal of tree removal at 1134 Douglas Thank you Lisa. Your comments will be shared with the Commissioners. Richard J Holtz Ow �u�ur�onr�€ Parks Superintendent / City Arborist Certified Arborist WE- 8393AM fto 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Office (650) 558-7333 / Cell (650) 759-3126 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Sign up for eNews From: Lisa Brady @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 4:11 PM To: PARKS -Richard Holtz <rholtz@burlingame.org> Subject: Appeal of tree removal at 1134 Douglas Hello Richard, In writing to the response of my neighbor at 1134 Douglas Ave to remove the Oak tree that sits between 1132-1134 Douglas Ave would be a travesty to1132 as it adds beauty, and shading from the heat and sun, and doesn't seem to sick, although it should have been better maintained by the landlord and because my landlord lives in China most of the time, and still resides in Burlingame a small amount of the year, I am willing to take the expense of having tree properly thinned out in order for it not to a be a safety Hazzard (weather permitting) not only to 1132, but also to 1134 Douglas. In order for the tree to be maintained a letter releasing 1134 of any legal responsibility would be written up to release liability. As a renter for the last 13 years, I initially invested in the interior & exterior of the home at my own expense. Now due to severe health & financial hardship issues, I've been unable to keep the exterior garden up to my liking. My gardener, Lee's Garden Service has worked with me many years over many past properties, and he has had generously worked on basic maintenance without charging me, which has been so wonderful. Please understand this tree has become an old, trusted friend & whatever I can do within reason to ensure the livelihood of the tree, I'm committed to helping its longevity. After all, my childhood favorite book is 'The Giving Tree' by Shel Silverstein & a book I read nightly to my daughter Keegan as a wide eyed child. Thank you for your consideration. Lisa Myshall Brady EXHIBIT C ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Lisa Brady @gmail.com> Date: Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Appeal of tree removal at 1134 Douglas To: PARKS -Richard Holtz <rholtz@burlingame.org> Hi Richard, As I'm on a small vaca with my daughter visiting from East Coast, this response may be received after close of business day. I will do my best to have it to you by 5PM today. Many thanks, Lisa On Wed, Sep 27, 2023, 10:32 AM PARKS -Richard Holtz <rholtz@burlingame.org> wrote: Hello Ms. Brady, I Hope you are doing well. I am writing you to request your objection to the tree removal in writing. You were traveling and dealing with a significant challenge last week when you called me. It was understandable that you were not able to write at the time. Our policy does require written appeals. Can you please write to me why you are objecting to the tree removal? It is important for us to receive this information to be included in our staff report for our commissioners to consider in advance of the October 5 commission meeting. This information must be received by close of business today to be included in the staff report. Thank you. Richard J Holtz Parks Superintendent / City Arborist Certified Arborist WE- 8393AM 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Office (650) 558-7333 / Cell (650) 759-3126 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Sign up for eNews From: Lisa Brady @gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:16 AM To: PARKS -Richard Holtz <rholtz@burl ingame.org> Subject: Re: Appeal of tree removal at 1134 Douglas Thank you for the update. I look forward to making all work out:) Many thanks, Lisa Brady On Thu, Sep 21, 2023, 8:15 AM PARKS -Richard Holtz <rholtz@burlingame.org> wrote: Hello Ms. Brady. Thank you for your contact. This is to confirm I have received your request to appeal the removal of the tree at 1134 Douglas. We will follow-up with you at a later date. Richard J Holtz Parks Superintendent / City Arborist Certified Arborist WE- 8393AM 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Office (650) 558-7333 / Cell (650) 759-3126 Please consider the environment before printing this email. Sign up for eNews BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: November 2, 2023 From: Rich Holtz, Parks Superintendent & City Arborist, 650-558-7335 Scott Spansail, Assistant City Attorney, 650-558-7275 Subject: Update to Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Chapter 11 (Trees and Vegetation) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Commission review and discuss the proposed updates to Chapter 11 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC). BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame has long had a significant relationship with its urban forest. Only a few months after the City was incorporated in 1908, the City enacted its first municipal code to protect a grove of trees. Over the years, community and civic leaders sought to protect and regulate the urban forest by updating its rules and regulation related to trees both public and private. Protection of City Street Trees was codified under BMC Chapter 11.04 in 1971. The remainder of the urban forest including privately owned trees was under Chapter 11.06 in 1975, with revisions taking place in 1992 and 1998. For many years, these two Chapters have established a framework for protection and fostering of the urban forest. However, some aspects of the Code have not kept pace with present arboriculture practices. To help clarify these updates, the City of Burlingame has joined other municipalities by establishing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP details City rules, recommendations, and practices in managing the urban forest. The UFMP is a dynamic document that is updated regularly, in contrast to the static (and mostly unchanged) Burlingame Municipal Code. Other public agencies too have focused on the development of these documents to better communicate about the urban forest with the community. The bulk of the City's present tree code has not been updated in 25 years, and some elements haven't been updated for twice that long. However, the UFMP was last updated in 2021. The City now desires to modernize this Chapter of the Code in a way that continues to fiercely protect the urban forest, while also balancing the need to modernize practices and recognize risks to public health and safety. The City first began seriously considering changes to this Chapter in 2018, and has studied other cities' municipal codes during that process. This included Palo Alto, Menlo Park, the City of Sacramento, Pasadena and Santa Barbara. This process began in 2018 under a different City Arborist and a different City Attorney. Their suggestions, as well as those of other departments including Community Development and Public Works, have helped influence the proposed changes. The resulting rough proposal, which we are here to discuss today, is intended to modernize our Municipal Code as it relates to trees, and codify present practices while improving aspects of the code that have been unable to address present issues. DISCUSSION Protected Trees and Public Benefit One of the focuses of the proposed update is to clearly identify key terms. City street trees are already considered protected, as are those that meet the definition based upon size, species, or their designation as "Heritage." The proposed update expands the definition of a protected tree to also include planted trees that were required as a condition of development or tree removal. This is an effort to ensure required plantings work as intended. Presently, a tree that was required to be planted could be lawfully removed without permission of the City. Proposed updates clearly identify what trees are protected and subject to City authority. The City will continue to encourage retention of mature trees for the benefit of the community. Where tree failure risk exceeds the benefits provided, the City Arborist and Director of Parks and Recreation are granted great deference in making sound arboriculture decisions for the benefit of public safety. In these emergency situations, the City will forgo typical public notification process in effort to act expeditiously to reduce a hazard. Development Our community has seen an increase in development and modifications in law that supersede Burlingame's Municipal Code. Requirements are expressly called out in BMC about the importance of trees and the impact of construction on remaining trees. The proposed code update includes protection requirements of trees to remain, retention of a project arborist and submission of arborist reports. Some of these include the following: • Requirement to show all protected trees on plans that are withing 30 feet of the project. This includes potentially protected trees on neighboring properties or in the public right of way. • Providing an independent arborist assessment and valuation for those trees potentially affected by proposed development. • Retaining a project arborist to create and monitor tree protection measures before and during construction activity. • Authority for City staff to halt construction due to tree damage or protection measures not being followed. Removal of Protected Trees Mature trees contribute significantly to the benefits of an urban forest. It is the City's goal to retain healthy mature trees that are appropriately selected for their location. The benefits a well -placed tree has to a community are numerous and include many health benefits for residents. When a 2 tree is considered for removal, a specific criterion is established and administered by the Parks and Recreation Department in accordance with the UFMP. The proposed update clarifies which reasons for tree removal are appealable, and which body will have authority to administer appeal proceedings. Below are some of concepts of why a tree would be approved for removal. The protected tree is dead. • Tree Risk and Health ratings. • An offensive species as identified by the City Arborist. Potential Development Some of the reasons a tree may be approved for removal will not be appealable or subject to the public notification process. Additionally, a fee will be established to account for staff and commission time with the appeal process. Should a relevant and eligible party to the matter wish to appeal the decisions of the Beautification Commission or Planning Commission, the matter shall be heard by the City Manager who will have the final decision on the matter. Replacement Requirements Whether due to removal of a protected tree or as a result of development, tree plantings of specific size and quantities are required. These trees are intended to be retained for the benefit of the Burlingame community. Trees provide significant benefit to the community and are considered as critical infrastructure when planted in the City right of way (ROW). The proposed update seeks to increase the size and quantity of trees needing to be planted dependent upon the size of the tree being removed or proposed development. It will also be proposed to remove this requirement from the code and to include with the UFMP in effort to be amendable as needed. Where trees cannot be replaced on -site as required, the City Arborist may approve a fee payable to the Tree Replacement Fund to be utilized for the planting and fostering of young trees elsewhere in the urban forest. Presently, trees planted in accordance with an approved protected tree removal permit require tree replacement on a 1:1 basis. The standard size of replacement trees are 24" box sized. The following chart is a proposed policy increase to the planting requirement that would be included with the UFMP. City -authorized removal replacement schedule: TRUNK DIAMETER REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE TREE 14 inches to 20 inches One — 24 inch box or two — 15 gallon > 20 inches to 30 inches One — 36 inch box, two — 24" box or four — 15 gallon > 30 inches to 40 inches Two — 36 inch box, three — 24" box or six — 15 gallon > 40 inches to 50 inches One — 48" box, Two — 36 inch box, Four — 24" box or Eight — 15 gallon 3 > 50 inches Two — 48" box, Three — 36 inch box, Five — 24" box or Ten — 15 gallon The Parks and Recreation Director and City Arborist will have sole -discretion to require greater or lesser plantings based upon a number of factors including site conditions and neighborhood impact. Ponnitiac The present code has not done enough to deter intentional violators. The City's goal will always be to educate the public on tree benefits and the rules Burlingame has for protected trees. Where trees are intentionally damaged or removed, the proposed code gives the City authority levy much larger fines and to recover the value of the tree, and to criminally prosecute the negligent action as a misdemeanor in the most egregious cases. The proposed code will include the establishment of the Tree Replacement Fund for the sole purpose of growing and maintaining young trees to expand the urban forest. FISCAL IMPACT Increase in revenue to the Tree Replacement Fund due to increased fees associated with protected tree removal and failure to meet required tree plantings. M