HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2012.06.07\
AGENDA
B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
JUNE 79 2012 @ 6:30 PM
CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD — Conference Room A
I. ROLL CALL
H. MINUTES
M. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. FROM THE FLOOR (At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the
agenda or any other matter. The Ralph M. Brown Act prohibits the Commission from acting on a
matter which is not on the agenda. Comments are limited to three minutes)
V. OLD BUSINESS
1) 2012 Landscape Award Selection
2) Approval of 2013 Business Landscape Nomination Form for Publicity Mailer
VI. NEW BUSINESS
1) Appeals to the Approval to Remove 2 Redwood Trees @ 1433 Cortez Avenue
2) Cancellation of July 5, 2012 Beautification Commission Meeting
VII. REPORTS
1) Staff
2) Chairperson
3) Commissioners
VIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Next Regular Meeting: August 2, 2012
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation
Dept. at (650) 558-7323 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. burlinggine.org
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Beautification Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Ave during normal business
hours.
CITY
B4lRLtNGAME
STAFF REPORT
` '+A1.�r JUK��•
V
To: Burlingame Beautification Commission
DATE: May 24, 2012
FROM: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist
suiRi Ecr: Removal of Redwoods at 1433 Cortez Ave
BACKGROUND:
On March 30, 2012 the homeowner at 1433 Cortez Ave. applied for a Tree Removal
Permit for the removal of two large redwood trees in the backyard because they were
"damaging the neighbor's garage and failing limbs in the neighbor's yard." The home
was recently under design review for a first and second story addition. There was no
indication of these trees being removed during the initial plan check.
The two trees are approximately 70-80yrs old and about 60-70ft in height. They are
growing in the northwest corner of the yard; one of the trees is located at the base of the
neighbor's garage. Utility lines are under the canopies and near the trunks of both trees.
The neighbor's garage was remodeled in 1998 and at that time, was set back from the
property line to accommodate the tree's root zone. The root flare of Tree #1 has now
grown close to the garage and will eventually damage the foundation. Tree #2 has a
history of limb failure and poor structure (due to past topping) and now has three co -
dominant leaders. Both trees have heavy lateral limbs and have not been properly
maintained.
An independent arborist report was submitted by the property owner recommending
removal based on: "trunk deformities... damaging to neighbor's garage".
In Chapter 11.06.060 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance,
determination for removal should be based on:
(d)(1) ... "the condition of the tree with respect to... proximity to existing
or proposed structures"...
(d)(7)... "The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree
to remain".
Based on these sections in the ordinance and findings, approval was granted for the
removal of Tree # 1 to prevent future damage to the garage structure or any future cost to
the homeowners. Tree #2 was approved due to poor structure, co -dominant leaders, and a
history of limb failure.
Commission Consideration:
1. Financial burden to property owner for future removal costs as the trees grow.
2. Financial burden to property owner for future structural repairs to garage
foundation.
3. Economic enjoyment of the property by both property owners.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Several options are available for the Commission
1. Deny the appeal and recommend removal based on the City Arborist
recommendation, the recommendation of the independent arborist, and Chapter
11.06.060 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Recommend replacement tree species and location.
2. Uphold the appeal and deny removal based on the aesthetic value of the trees.
Attachments:
Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance
City of Burlingame Tree Evaluation
Photos
Independent Arborist Report
M
11.06.010
Chapter 11.06
URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE
PROTECTION
Sections:
11.06.010
Purpose and intent.
11.06.020
Definitions.
11.06.030
Nomination and listing of
protected trees.
11.06.040
Emergencies.
11.06.050
Prohibitions and protections.
11.06.060
Notices and permits required for
removal or work significantly
affecting protected trees.
11.06.070
Decision by director.
11.06.080
Appeal.
11.06.090
Tree requirements and
reforestation.
11.06.100
Penalty.
11.06.010 Purpose and intent.
The city of Burlingame is endowed and forested with a
variety of healthy and valuable trees which must be pro-
tected and preserved. The preservation of these trees is
essential to the health, welfare and quality of life of the
citizens of the city because these trees preserve the scenic
beauty of the city, maintain ecological balance, prevent
I'll. erosion of top soil, counteract air pollution and oxygenate
the air, absorb noise, maintain climatic and microclimatic
balance, help block wind, and provide shade and color. For
these same reasons, the requirement of at least one tree,
exclusive of city -owned trees, on every residential lot in
the city should be part of the permit process for any con-
struction or remodeling.
It is the intent of this chapter to establish conditions and
regulations for the removal and replacement of existing
trees and the installation of new trees in new construction
and development consistent with these purposes and the
reasonable economic enjoyment of private property. (Ord.
1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598
§ 1 (part), (1998))
11.06.020 Definitions.
Terms used in this chapter shall be defined as follows:
(a) "Commission" means the Beautification Commis-
sion of the city of Burlingame.
(b) "Department" means the parks and recreation
department of the city of Burlingame.
(c) "Development or redevelopment" means any work
upon any property in the city of Burlingame which re-
quires a subdivision, variance, use permit, building permit
or other approval or which involves excavation, landscap-
ing, or construction in the vicinity of a protected tree.
(d) "Director" means the director of parks and recrea-
tion of the city of Burlingame.
(e) "Landscape tree" means a generally recognized
ornamental tree and shall exclude fruit, citrus, or nut -
bearing trees.
(f) "Protected tree" means:
/ (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48)
inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches
above natural grade; or
(2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city
council based upon findings that it is unique and of impor-
tance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location,
historical significance or other factor; or
(3) A stand of trees in which the director has deter-
mined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival.
(g) "Pruning" means the removal of more than one
third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more
than one third of the root system. Pruning done without a
permit or which does not conform to the provisions of a
permit shall be deemed.a removal.
(h) "Removal' means cutting to the ground, extrac-
tion, killing by spraying, girdling, or any other means.
(Ord. 1057 § I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord.
1492 § 1, (1993); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998))
` ./(Burlingame Supp, No. 2, 9-06) 236
11.06.030 Nomination and listing of protected
trees.
Nomination for protected tree status under Section
11.06.020(f)(2) may be made by any citizen. The commis-
sion shall review such nominations and present its recom-
mendations to the city council for designation.
A listing of trees so designated, including the specific
locations thereof, shall be kept by the department and shall
be available for distribution to interested citizens.
The city council may remove a designated tree from the
list upon its own motion or upon request. Requests for
such action may originate in the same manner as nomina-
tions for protected tree status. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part),
(1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part),
(1998))
11.06.040 Emergencies.
In the event that an emergency condition arises
whereby immediate action is necessary because of disease,
or danger to life or property, a protected tree may be re-
moved or altered by order of the director or, if the director
is unavailable, a responsible member of the police, fire,
parks and recreation, or public works department. In such
event, a report shall be made to the commission describing
the conditions and necessity of such an order. (Ord. 1057 §
11.06.050
I (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1
(part), (1998))
11.06.050 Prohibitions and protections.
(a) No protected tree shall be removed from any par-
cel without a permit except as provided in Section
11.06.040.
(b) The following conditions shall be observed during
construction or development of property:
(1) Protected trees are to be protected by a fence
which is to be maintained at all times;
(2) Protected trees that have been damaged or de-
stroyed by construction shall be replaced or the city shall
be reimbursed, as provided in Section 11.06.090;
(3) Chemicals or other construction materials shall not
be stored within the drip line of protected trees;
(4) Drains shall be provided as required by the direc-
tor whenever soil fill is placed around protected trees; and
(5) Signs, wires or similar devices shall not be at-
tached to protected trees. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975);
Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998))
11.06.060 Notices and permits required for
removal or work significantly
affecting protected trees.
(a) Removal or Pruning. Owners, or their authorized
representative, of protected trees on public or private prop-
erty shall obtain a permit to remove or prune a protected
tree. The application shall be on a form furnished by the
department and shall state, among other things, the number
and location of the tree(s) to be removed or pruned by
type(s) and the reason for removal or pruning of each. The
application shall also include a photograph with correct
botanical identification of the subject tree or tree(s). An
authorized representative of the department shall make an
inspection of the tree(s) and shall file a written report and
his or her recommendations to the director.
(b) Educational Conference before Work Commences.
After receipt of an application, the director may require an
educational conference to inform the owner of potential
alternatives to the proposed removal or pruning.
(c) Removal or Pruning of Protected Trees on Unde-
veloped or Redeveloped Property. When an application for
development or redevelopment of a property containing
one or. more protected trees is filed in any office or de-
partment of the city, the person making such an applica-
tion shall file a site plan showing the location of buildings
or structures or of proposed site disturbances, and the loca-
tion of all trees. The director shall determine if all pro-
tected trees are shown. An authorized representative of the
department shall make an inspection and shall file a report
of his or her findings and recommendations to the director.
237
Subject to the replacement provisions of Section
11.06.090, the director shall approve the removal of pro-
tected trees within the footprint of approved construction
in the R-1 zone, which construction does not require a
variance, conditional use permit, or special permit under
Title 25 of this code. The notice and appeal provisions of
Sections 11.06.070 and 11.06.080 shall not apply to such
approvals.
(d) Review. In reviewing applications, the director
shall give priority to those based on hazard or danger of
disease. The director may refer any application to another
department, committee, board or commission of the city
for a report and recommendation, and may require the
applicant to provide an arborist's report. In reviewing each
application, the director shall determine:
(1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to dis-
ease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed
structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interfer-
ence with public utility services;
(2) The necessity to remove the tree(s) in order to
construct any proposed improvements to allow economic
enjoyment of the property;
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the
removal of the tree(s) on erosion; soil retention; and diver-
sion or increased flow of surface waters;
(4) The number of trees existing in the neighborhood
on improved property and the effect the removal would
have on the established standard of the area and property
value. Neighborhood is defined as the area within a 300-
foot radius of the property containing the tree(s) in ques-
tion;
(5) The number of trees the particular parcel can ade-
quately support according to good arboricultural practices;
(6) The effect tree removal would have on wind pro-
tection, noise and privacy; and
(7) The economic consequences and obligations of
requiring a tree to remain. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975);
Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 2, (1993); Ord. 1598 §
1 (part), (1998); Ord. 1603 § 9, (1998))
11.06.070 Decision by director.
A decision shall be rendered by the director for each
application. If an application is approved, it shall include
replacement conditions in accordance with Section
11.06.090. The director shall give written notification of
the decision to the applicant and all property owners
within one hundred (100) feet of the property containing
the tree(s) in question, and include a copy of the city Ur-
ban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter
11.06). (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1,
(1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998))
ic
11.06.080
11.06.080 Appeal.
Any person may appeal the decision of the director to
the commission by filing an appeal in writing with the
director no later than 5:00 p.m. of the tenth calendar day
after the decision. The director shall set the matter for
review by the commission at its next regular meeting and
provide notice by mail of the commission hearing to the
appellant and applicant at least five (5) days prior thereto.
The determination of the commission shall become
final and conclusive in ten (10) days if no appeal is filed.
Destruction, removal or other work on a protected tree
shall not commence until after the ten (10)-day period has
passed, or, if any appeal is filed, until the decision of the
city council. During the period between the action of the
commission and the end of the ten (I0)-day appeal period,
any person may appeal such action to the city council.
Such appeal shall be in writing and shall be filed with the
city clerk. During the same period the city council, on its
own motion, may suspend the order of the commission for
the purpose of reviewing the action of the commission. A
permit shall be valid for six (6) months after the date it is
issued. Under exceptional circumstances, the director may
issue one six (6)-month extension. (Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992);
Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998))
11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation.
(a) Whenever the development or redevelopment of a
single family home, duplex, apartment house or condomin-
ium results in any increase in lot coverage or habitable
space (as defined by Chapter 25 of this code), the property
shall be required to meet the following requirements:
(1) One landscape tree for every One thousand (1,000)
square feet of lot coverage or habitable space for single
family homes or duplexes;
(2) One landscape tree for every two thousand (2,000)
square feet of lot coverage for apartment houses or con-
dominiums.
Lot coverage and habitable space shall include both
existing and new construction. The director shall deter-
mine the number of existing trees which are of an accept-
able size, species and location to be counted toward this
requirement. Any additional trees which are required shall
meet the standards for replacement trees set forth in sub-
section (b) below.
(b) Permits for removal of protected tree(s) shall in-
clude replanting conditions with the following guidelines:
(1) Replacement shall be three (3) fifteen (15)-gallon
size, one twenty-four (24)-inch box size, or one thirty-six
(36)-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed
as determined below.
(2) Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be
replaced by two (2) 24-inch box size, or two (2) 36-inch
238
box size landscape trees for each tree so removed as de-
termined below.
(3) Replacement of a tree be waived by the director if
a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet
all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree
Protection ordinance.
(4) Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall
be determined by the director and shall be based on the
species, location and value of the tree(s) removed.
(5) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection
(b)(1) or (2) above, as applicable, cannot be planted on the
property, payment of equal value shall be made to the city.
Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund
to be drawn upon for public tree planting. (Ord. 1470 § 1,
(1992); Ord. 1492 § 3, (1993); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part),
(1998))
11.06.100 Penalty.
In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any
person removing or.pruning a tree in violation of this ordi-
nance is liable to treble damages as set forth in Section 733
of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California.
Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the
tree as determined by the International Society of Arbori-
culture Standards. (Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I
(part), (1998))
CITY
Tree Location: 1433 Cortez
L
CITY OF BURLINGAME
TREE EVALUATION
Person Reporting: Bob Disco
Details of Tree:
Genus: Sequoia
Species: semprevirens
Common Name: Coast Redwood
Approx. Age:70+, Height:60+' DBH 671n:
Date March 23, 2012
Title: Park Supervisor/City Arborist
1. Assignment: Homeowner request removal of two redwoods in northeast comer of property due to failing limbs and
damage to neighbor's garage.
2. Observations:
Structural Defects: Tree #1: large root flare expanding and growing under neighbor's garage. Heavy lateral limbs.
Tree #2: Co -dominant leaders at about 20ft, poor structure, heavy lateral limbs, topped at one time.
Soil/Root Condition: growing in No yard surrounded by turf. Neighbor's garage remodeled in 1998. Unknown
damage to roots during construction.
Injuries: Wounds from past pruning cuts.
History of tree/site: House going through design review for new addition, no indication of tree removal when plans
were issued and reviewed by City Arborist. 1998 neighbor's garage remodeled and set back from property line to
accommodate redwood #1. Property line offset. Homeowners says #2 has history of limb failure. Probably due to
excessive lateral limb weight. Both trees may have been topped at some point.
3. Analysis / Testing: All analysis and testing were visual observations.
Conclusions:
Both trees are mature redwoods probably planted by the original homeowner. Tree #1 has a large root flare that is and will
damage nearby structure, it also has long lateral limbs. Tree #2 has been topped at one time and now has co -dominant
leaders and probably included bark, this could result in whole tree failure at some point. It also has poor structure, heavy
lateral limbs and history of limb failure.
Based on City ordinances, it is permissible to remove trees if they are in the proximity of structures (I 1.06.060.dI). Tree #1 is
growing at the base of a garage and will damage foundation at some point if damage has not already occurred. Cutting
the root flare is not an option since in will increase the risk of decay and instability of the tree. Thinning the tree is an option
but it will result in stub cuts and will not address the damage to garage caused by the root flare.
Tree #2 is growing near #1 sharing the same root zone. It has co -dominated leaders and is in poor to fair condition. Crotch is
too high to visibly see, but assume included bark, which means failure at some point; cabling is an option but must be
maintained and it identifies a structural problem.
At the time of planting, these trees were improperly spaced with no consideration to nearby structures. They have not been
properly maintained and as a result, are causing damage and safety concerns for homeowner. Remove and replace with
two 24inch box sized trees appropriately spaced.
--*N
OR
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650 — 525 —146.4
March.12, 2012
Dr. Fernandao Velayos,
1433 Cortez
Burlingame, CA 94010
Site: 1433 Cortez, Burlingame, CA
Dear Dr. Velayos,
As requested on Monday; February 13, 2012, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on
two large redwood trees. The trees have grown quite large the large rear yard and your concern
as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees were measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast
`-- height). The tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality.
The trees' condition rating is based on 50
percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the
following scale.
1 -
29
Very Poor
30
- 49
Poor
50
- 69
Fair
70
- 8§
Good
90 -
100
Excellent
The height of the tree was"measured using a
Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread
'free #1 with root zone against neighbor's garage.
was paced off..Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.
Observations:
Tree #1 is a Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens) with a diameter at breast height of 66.7
inches.. The tree is located at the rear of the property close to the neighbor's garage. The �"�
1433 Cortez/3/12/12 (2)
~ estimated height of the tree is. 65 feet with a total crown spread of 45 feet. The vigor of the tree
is fair with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of the tree is poor with a very large
buttress flare which is formed against the neighbor's garage. The tree was topped in the past
with very long heavy lateral limbs. The tree receives a condition rating of 60 on a scale of .1-
100.
Tree #2 is a coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) with a diameter at breast height
of 49.1 inches. The tree is located at the rear of
.the property and shares a root zone with #1.
The estimated height of the tree is 60 feet with a
total .crown spread of 40: feet. The vigor of the
tree is fair with normal shoot growth for the
species. The form of the redwood is poor with
repeated topping events causing heavy lateral
limbs to form resulting. in constant limb loss.
The tree receives a condition rating of 55-on a
scale of 1-100.
' Summary:
:. i The two redwoods have grown too large for the
small rear yard. The trees.have been repeatedly
f topped causing trunk deformities and heavy
lateral limbs to develop. Tree #1 is obviously
damaging the newly remodeled garage.
Remove the two redwoods as trimming within
ANSI standards will not alleviate the limb drop.
As tree # 1 enlarges .damage to the neighbor's
garage will increase.. Replace the trees as required by the City of Burlingame with a "species
more suited for this small rear yard.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on- sound arboficultural.
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
1433 Cortez/3/12/12 (2)
estimated height of the tree is. 65 feet with a total crown spread of 45 feet. The vigor of the tree
is fair with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of the tree is poor with a very large
buttress flare which is formed against the neighbor's garage. The tree was topped in the past
with very long heavy lateral limbs.. The tree receives a condition rating of 60 on a scale of .1-
100.
Tree #2 is a coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) with a diameter at breast height
of 49.1 inches. The tree is located at the rear of
.the property and shares a root zone with #1.
The estimated height of the tree is 60 feet with a
total .crown spread of 40:feet.. Thevigor of the
tree is fair with normal shoot growth for the
species. The form of the redwood is poor with
repeated topping events causing heavy lateral
limbs to form resulting. in constant_limb loss.
The tree receives a condition rating of 55-on a
scale of 1-100.
'1 Summary:
The two redwoods have grown too large for the
small rear yard. The trees.have been repeatedly
topped causing trunk deformities and heavy
lateral limbs to develop. Tree #1 is obviously
damaging the newly remodeled garage.
Remove the two redwoods as trimming within
ANSI standards will not alleviate the limb drop.
As tree #1 enlarges damage to the neighbor's
garage will increase. -.Replace the trees as required by the City of Burlingame with a 'species
more suited for this small rear yard.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound atboiicultural,
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE40476A
L..
Page 1 of 6
Eugene Podkaminer����
Burlingame, CA 94010
March 30, 2012
City of Burlingame
Parks and Recreation Department
666 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attention: Karlene Harvey (kharvev0burlingame.org)
As a neighbor, parent and concerned resident of
Burlingame I am appealing the request to grant permits to
remove two coastal redwood trees located at 1433 Cortez
Avenue (APN 026-051-010).
Our property is exactly adjacent to 1433 Cortez across the
easement and we look directly onto these two beautiful
redwood trees out of our kitchen, living room and master
bedroom (the picture on the right was taken from our
kits ie�H).
Addff 0i1afy, a tare adJ—ar�Rt Ma"rfrwe- F01eM al1N very
left of the picture) has been approved for removal to make
way for new construction next door at 1436 Cabrillo
Avenue. The combined removal of thesethreemature.
trees adjacent to our property is catastrophic for our views
and will result in an urban and denuded panorama.
My first grade daughter cries every time we discuss the
removal of these. two redwoods. Old and beautiful trees
like these remind us of why we choose to live in
Burlingame, and on this particular street.
I base my appeal on the following reasons:
The two heritage trees are mature and in good -to -fair condition; there is no health -related reason
for removal.
• The majestic trees add value to our community, are an important public good, and are beautiful.
• These redwoods help support our environment and ecosystem.
• The applicants purchased 1433 Cortez in 2010 and in doing so knowingly accepted responsibility
for the maintenance required by these trees.
• Maintenance for these two trees is not onerous or an unduly burdensome.
• The applicants did not document any damage caused by these two trees to their house during an
extensive 2011 remodel and addition. Neither did City inspectors nor the Parks Supervisor
express any concern over these two redwood trees. Please find Planning Commission records
attached to this letter.
Page 2 of 6
These two majestic redwoods are the largest and most loved trees on our block. We would be very upset `1
to lose these two special redwoods which serve as a great way to bring nature to our community. These
heritage trees add significant monetary and aesthetic value to our community, environment and
ecosystem. Trees like these contribute to Burlingame's recognition by the Arbor Day Foundation as a
Tree City, USA for the past three decades.
Kielty Arborist Services, contracted by the applicant, rates both trees in "fair" condition. The primary
reason that the owners applied for the permit seems to be that the trees have grown too large for their
rear yard and that one of trees may soon damage the newly remodeled garage. An arborist who is
familiar with these trees and who has pruned them on my behalf points out that both trees are already old
and mature and in good health. They do not grow rapidly at this life stage and do not add much wood.
Proper maintenance requires pruning every 5 to 8 years, estimated at less than $2,000 total. I have a
large, mature, coastal redwood in my front yard and so am familiar with the specific maintenance required
by these trees.
The applicants purchased 1433 Cortez in August of 2010, when the redwoods were in a similar state to
today. They applied and received permission for a first and second story addition in May and June 2011.
No mention of the redwood trees was made in the proposal nor was there any documented discussion
about the redwoods`at the Planning Commission meetings in May and June 2011. The Parks Supervisor,
Bob Disco, had `no: comments" on the proposed plans. These two trees should be no more of an issue
now than they were last year. If one of the trees was damaging the garage this fact would have been
documented and pointed out in the remodel proposal and inspection reports, but there is no such
discussion or documentation.
- Why remove these two heritage trees now?
Sincerely,
Eugene Podkaminer
'N
City of Burlingame
Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attention: Karlene Harvey
April 4, 2012
We, the undersigned property owners, appeal the decision to issue permits to remove two redwood trees
located on the property of 1433 Cortez Avenue (APN 026-051-010) for the following reasons:
• The two heritage trees are mature and in good -to -fair condition.
• The majestic trees add value to our community, are an important public good, and are beautiful.
• These redwoods help support our environment and ecosystem.
• Maintenance for these two trees is not onerous or an undue burden on the applicant.
• The applicants did not document any damage caused by these two trees to their house during an
extensive 2011 remodel and addition. Neither did city inspectors nor the Parks Supervisor
express any concern over these two redwood trees.
These two trees should be no more of an issue now than they were fast year. If one of the trees was
damaging the garage this fact would have been documented and referenced in the remodel proposal and
inspection reports, but there is no such discussion or documentation.
Why remove these two heritage trees now?
Property Address
Owner Signature
Date
AVJ
-`
?�
r
4 '
Z 1 ;41-71
s
CC
f
,
3AL,J z_
q 45 F I z Lv !.,v
3� r>at 2
trymac-
FA
PAMS-Harvey, Karlene
From: Shawna Gwin Krasts [sgkrasts@gmail.comj
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:50 AM
To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
Cc: Evan Krasts
Subject: Permit decision appeal for tree removal on 1433 Cortez
Attachments: HeritageTrees.pdf
ad
HeritageTrees.pdf
(263 KB)
Hi Karlene,
Please see attached appeal letter regarding 1433 Cortez tree removal.
Shawna & Evan Krasts
OR
City of Burlingame `
Parks and Recreation Department i
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attention: Karlene Harvey harve 0burfingmim orF
We, the undersigned property owner(s), appeal the decision to issue perrnits to remove two red,.vood frees located on
the property of 1433 Cortez Avenue (APN 026-051-010) for the following reasons:
• The two heritage trees are mature and in good -to -fair condition...
• The majestic trees add value to our community, are an importaiit public'gvod; and are beautiful: t....' = .:`• ~'.,;' :`.
• These redwoods help support our environment and ecosystem.
• Maintenance for these two trees is not onerous or an undue burden on the applicant. :' . : -
• The applicants did not document any damage caused by these two trees to their house during an exteirslvd': � "
2011 remodel and addition. Neither did city inspectors nor the Parks Supervisor express concern ovet .'. , ;.
' L
these two redwood trees. f6
These two trees should be no more of an issue now than they were last year: If one of the: trees was -damaging the'
garage this fact would have been documented and referenced in the remodel proposal and inspection reports; butt
there is no such discussion or documentation. `
Why remove these two heritage trees now?
• Property Address.Owne A4r#e
i _
' 15u � lweu�ll.a�. s � ��'�.� .._..- - - - - .. _ -�-- f-----• 3 J 3 �r2._. _.__....----....__.w�_:._:. � - -
'_._.___ ....-�.-.--__._..._._.... .-'—._.-_�.J ��_.___. _.. ._.-_.__ ....-_.._.......—_L:_•:....._..._ice__.—_�_-._._.-._... _--.—.. _..__—___._ .�. e+�
i. r:
�y
PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
From: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 1:52 PM
To: 'Travis Culwell'
Subject: RE: redwoods at 1433 Cortez
Thank you for your communication. Your letter was received after the appeal period and
cannot be included as one of the appeals. However, appeals were received on this permit
application and the item will be set for hearing and placed on the agenda of the May 3,
2012 Burlingame Beautification Commission meeting. Anyone wishing to speak to this issue
at the meeting will be invited to do so at the appointed time of the hearing.
Feel free to contact our office at 650.558.7330 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karlene Harvey
Admin. Secretary/Parks Division
-----Original Message -----
From: Travis Culwell[mailto:travisculwell@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 11:33 AM
To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
Cc: CortezRedwoods@gmail.com
Subject: redwoods at 1433 Cortez
Dear Ms. Harvey,
I hope you are able to receive this note on April 5, one day past your April 4 deadline,
as our family has been traveling for spring break.
am writing about the proposed removal of 2 heritage redwood trees at 1433 Cortez Avenue.
',.,e are concerned about the proposed removal and request that your department reconsider
this matter and consider alternatives to preserve these heritage trees.
As a resident of the Easton Addition I can personally note how beautiful these trees are
for our neighborhood. I can plainly see them from my house on Montero Avenue, 9 blocks
away! These trees are a distinctive note of beauty in the view from my front porch,
living room, and upstairs bedroom.
A troubling pattern I observe in Burlingame is the removal of trees by speculative housing
developers, who are more interested in short-term gain than in the long-term beauty and
value of our neighborhoods. Judging by the small house and its recent sale at 1433 Cortez,
it seems to me that this case is a part of that pattern. Just as our City has strengthened
zoning and design review to ensure new houses aesthetically contribute to the
neighborhood,, we would urge the City to be just as vigilant in protecting heritage trees.
We recognize and appreciate the careful approach your department has taken to managing
trees in our neighborhoods, now as in decades past. Though we are the "City of Trees," we
are also a city of small house lots, requiring care and balance in planning decisions.
Thank you for your efforts, and for receiving this input.
Sincerely,
Travis Culwell
1427 Montero Ave.
1
Erica Carmel
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
April 2, 2012
City of Burlingame
Parks and Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attention: Karlene Harvey (kharvey0burlingame.org)
As a neighbor, parent, and concerned resident of Burlingame I am appealing the request to grant permits
to remove two coastal redwood trees located at 1433 Cortez Avenue (APN 026-051-010).
Our house is directly adjacent to 1433 Cortez across the easement and we look directly onto these two
beautiful redwood trees out of our kitchen, living room and master bedroom (the picture on the right was
taken from our kitchen).
Old and beautiful trees like these remind us of why we
choose to live in Burlingame. Removing them for no
substantive reason is disrespectful to nature, destructive to
property value, and irreversible.
As a parent, I teach my children that they should strive to
leave the world a better place than they found it — to
reduce the waste we produce, to recycle whenever
possible, and to appreciate and respect nature.
If we don't protect our natural resources, our tree lined
streets and beautiful views will only exist in the stories that
we tell our children and grandchildren.
Please don't let that happen to our community.
Sincerely,
Erica Carmel
P.S. My daughter drew a picture, attached on the following page.
kt
"--.Mmgm
Thursday March 29, 2012
Dear Members of the Park Commission,
I am writing to you because I have heard that there is a request to chop down two
healthy trees in my neighborhood. I think our beautiful trees are what make this city so
beautiful. I can not understand a home owner asking to chop down trees because they
may harm their new garage. That does not seem to me to be an adequate reason to remove the
trees.
The people requesting the removal of the trees are recent residents in our city. I am
sure when they came looking for a home, they realized the important contribution that the trees
make to our city. I can not understand why they would want to get rid of these trees and I
don't think you should give them a permit to do so. Isn't it our policy to protect our trees? I
know that if a tree is unhealthy and tearing up the streets they need to be removed —but neither
of these is a factor in this request.
The trees are healthy. They are not damaging the garage. They are not tearing up the
pavement. There is no valid reason to chop them down. Please do not allow this to go
forward. Save the trees, please.
S. c ly,
�gt- Z-3�-aj
Patricia Gray
1616 Adeline Dr.
Burlingame
March 29, 2012
Dear Ms Harvey-
1 am writing regarding the proposal to remove 2 large full-grown redwood trees
from the property at 1433 Cortez. While the property owners may be
inconvenienced by the size of the trees, most residents of Burlingame feel
strongly that our older larger trees need special protection from removal,
especially our California redwoods. Unless a tree is dying or truly dangerous
(which neither of these trees are), my husband and I disapprove of the removal of
them. As you are aware, it is easy to get an arborist to agree a tree should be
cut down and removed, but it is also easy to find other arborists who would
disagree. I suggest we investigate this further before making a drastic change
that may take 50 or 100 years to correct with a new tree.
Are we truly a "City of Trees" in spirit, or just in name?
Sincerely,
Lynn and Sam Israelit
1560 Columbus Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
3/30/2012
-,*N
-N
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Parks Division Telephone (650) 558-7330
Fax: (650) 696-7216 * Email: kharvev(ci),budingame.org
r
April 6, 2012
Mr, Fernando Velayos
1433 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: APPEALS AND ONE FAVORABLE COMMUNICATION REGARDING THE APPROVED
REMOVAL OF TWO REDWOOD TREES IN THE BACK YARD OF 1433 CORTEZ AVENUE -
BURLINGAME
We are in receipt of the enclosed documents appealing the approval to remove two Redwood Trees in the back
yard of the above address. The appeal(s) will be forwarded to the Burlingame Beautification Commission and a
hearing will be scheduled for the meeting on Thursday, June 7`*, 2012.
The Beautification Commission meets at 6.30 PM at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, (Conference
Room A) should you wish to attend and address the Commission regarding this matter. Interested parties listed
below and adjacent property owners are also receiving copies of this letter and the attachments, so they may attend
�- the Commission meeting and make any comments if they wish to do so. A staff report from the City Arborist and a
meeting agenda will be mailed to the addresses below the week of May 28'". Anyone wishing to submit additional
documentation, should forward it to our office at 850 Burlingame Avenue by Friday, May 25' 4 so it can be
distributed to the Commission.
If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330.
Sincerely,
Bob Disco
Parks Supervisor/City Arborist
Attachments: Supporting documents appealing the approved removal of 2 Redwood trees at 1433 Cortez Ave.;
Supporting document favoring removal; Notification and Approval Letter dated 3.23.2012; Permit
Application and Independent Arborist Report Requesting Removal of 2 Redwood trees at 1433
Cortez Ave.
CC:
Property Owners: 1429,1434,1436,1437, & 1461 Cortez Ave.;
1408, 1412, 1428, 1424, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1436, 1437, 1441, 1444, 1448, 1452, 1456, &
1464 Cabrillo Ave.;
1452 Bernal Ave.; 1616 & 1801 Adeline Dr.; 1560 Columbus Ave.; 1548 Newlands Ave.
"IN
May 22, 2012
City of Burlingame
Beautification Commission
Attention: Karlene Harvey (kharvey@burlingame.org)
We write this letter as the homeowners of 1433 Cortez Avenue. We have submitted
an application for removal of two closely spaced redwood trees on our property in
accordance to the process the City of Burlingame has established. We enjoy the
trees in Burlingame, but these two trees pose a significant threat to safety and
property to us and to our immediate neighbors. Therefore we request removal of
these two trees. We would plan to replace these trees with ones that maintain the
green -like setting in our yard, but that are appropriate for a small lot surrounded by
homes and families.
The concern posed by these trees, which are located deep within our backyard, may
not be fully be appreciated by those looking at the top of the trees from a distance.
That is because the threat to safety and property and the consequences are not
experienced at a distance, but on the ground by us the homeowners, and our
affected neighbors. Thus we appreciate the opportunity to discuss our application
and share this information with the Commission.
�. The two closely spaced redwoods are located in the right rear of our property,
adjacent to our neighbor's garage and in close proximity to power and telephone
lines that run along the back easement. Large branches fall commonly. The tree on
the right has grown massively and with the most recent wet winter, the roots
currently abut and are about to lift the neighbor's garage once again. The tree in fact
looks slightly tilted probably due to the roots pushing up against the garage. If not
addressed, this would be the second time in over 10 years that the tree has caused
damage to the garage. Back then, however, intervention did not occur until it was
too late and the tree roots lifted and destroyed the neighbor's garage. The neighbor
had to rebuild the garage and even indented the garage a few feet to accommodate
the expansive growth. The hope was that this would completely resolve the
situation. However, the tree and roots continue to grow rapidly and the problem has
returned. Unlike then, the difference is this time there is an opportunity to
intervene..
In addition, we have been told from both side neighbors, who have lived in their
homes for a long time, that there is a long history and pattern of rather large heavy
limbs crashing into their yard. Crashing limbs from the redwood on the right has
damaged property and has cost our neighbor money to replace patio furniture,
fences, and to remove massive limbs from their pool.
The redwood on the left similarly has had many safety issues and has caused
�' property damage. The tree does not look like what one would think of a normal
redwood, The top has a split crown, there are gashes in the trunk, deep gaps where
limbs should be, and there are limbs that bizarrely sag downward. I surmise that
this is due to repeated topping, probably from rapid growth and safety concerns due
to the proximity to the power and phone lines. Our neighbor to the left has
experienced a pattern of massive limbs crashing into her yard over the years. This
has caused destruction of property, but fortunately no harm to adults or children. In
the last 18 months there have been at least two such occurrences, even after hiring a
service to properly prune the tree. The last one involved an over 15 foot, thick and
heavy limb that took out our neighbor's phone line and nearly ripped out our power
line from the connection to our house (see enclosed letter). We had to call PG&E to
service and fix the line. The limb was so large and heavy it required hiring a wood
chipper for disposal.
The dropping of smaller, although still life-threating branches is an ongoing issue
that seems beyond solving with pruning. It continues to occur despite pruning. In
March we heard a snap and saw an important 10-foot limb span the easement that,
again, fortunately missed power lines and our rear neighbor's garage and property
(see photograph). Thinner, but 10+ pound limbs (essentially like a 10+ pound
weight) regularly fall from the sky making the area under the tree essentially a
danger zone and a part of the yard we avoid due to significant safety concerns. Head
injury from such limbs can cause concussions and potentially life threating
conditions such as subdural bleeds for adults but especially children. As we plan
our family, we should be allowed to have our child enjoy and play in the safety of
our closed backyard without fear. I imagine this is a pretty basic aspiration and
dream of all homeowners, with or without children.
We often hear at least one child playing in our rear neighbor's back yard and we are
happy that, to date, they do not appear to have experienced what our two side
neighbors have. I hope this is not simply a matter of time before this occurs. My
understanding is that that property was a vacant lot less than a decade ago before a
new home was built there. I do not know if the original owners of the home
experienced problems with these two trees, but I am glad that the new owners have
not. We are trying to avoid such problems and prevent avoidable tragedies to
property and people from occurring.
In summary, we thank the Commission for hearing our request. The city of
Burlingame has established a process for removing and renewing trees because
there is an understanding that trees can become sick or pose safety and property
concerns. We have submitted an application for removal of these two trees located
deep in our property because they have overgrown the small lot and pose an
important threat to safety and property for us and affected neighbors. These facts
may not be apparent nor have there been consequences suffered by those looking at
the top of trees from a distance, but this a different reality on the ground. These
trees have been topped, pruned, trimmed and an entire garage was indented to
accommodate the massive growth. To propose these solutions again ignores this '\
long history. We ask you to not ignore these past warnings, Besides causing past
property damage to our side neighbors and imminent property damage to our right
neighbor's garage, it is only a matter of time before there is true tragedy due to limb
crashing on a live power line or bodily injury to an adult or child due to a falling
limb. As such, we request removal. We would plan to replace the trees with ones
that that are appropriate for a small lot that is surrounded by homes and families
and at the same time will provide a park -like environment and green screen.
Thank you for addressing our concerns and request for tree removal.
Respectfully submitted,
: Ve[
Uma and Fernando Velayos
OR
Fram-. ttaddeen Wontwarth
Subjecr YOUR telephoas wire
Date: Decembw 30; 2MO 1.11M PM PST
To:
RGOY Tc;
l:l1t7,r"V-TTr7-.'A
In the W of the day today we were able iD'bvjbkmhoof ow hM telephone kwAntwnstOSL The telephone wire bwn the pale to our tKxmo was
ripp W down (Tm guessing *w do smart flying Use, learn was to ctgprlt.j But Ow reesan You nand to know is itwm y is deer #W your tsk q*wrw wire was
Woo adi ewd since, k is hanging VERY low. Obvbwk. "use limas ht bath warm but saffmalww Yana shied attadned though sagging may.
t
k � :
a
}}
� y
� .i
(fti
i
��1i'q`e
�:
� lid,
�'�}'��
$$
�4
S aP 3,..
��:
�j
'a
f a
I*
.��' p�
�.i
�
^v
..
.'
�,.
�
� ..
y: >...
..
,. _ ., y.
iM9`S?��R� �
�m.
�:
.. , s.
(�
�:
<:"t
a.�p•
� � �.
I.,
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Parks Division Telephone (650) 558-7330
Fax: (650) 696-7216 * Email: kharvevCcD-burlingame.org
March 23, 2012
Fernando Velayos
1433 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: REQUEST TO REMOVE TWO REDWOOD TREES @ 1433 CORTEZ AVENUE — B URLINGAME
I reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned trees in the right rear comer of the property at the
above address. Because the trees have large root flares, heavy limb weight, and based on the following reasons on an
independent arborist report, both trees are eligible for removal:
1) Redwood tree #1 has a large root flare that is expanding and growing under the existing
garage. The tree will continue to grow and will cause significant damage to neighbors
structure.
2) Redwood tree #2 has co -dominant leaders 20 feet from the base of the tree due to past
topping, resulting in poor structure.
3) Replacement with two 24 — inch bax size landscape trees (no fiuit or nut tree) will be
required as defined in Section 11.06.090, and can be planted anywhere on the private
property.
Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the trees subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal
Code. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self addressed envelope
BEFOREApri14, 2012.
Adjacent property owner(s) at the address(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. Appeals to
this decision or any of its conditions or fmdings, must be filed in writing to our office by April 4, 2012 as provided in
Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter
11.06). The permit will be issued on April 4, 2012 if no appeal has been received by that date.
Sincerely,
Bob Disco
Parks Supervisor/Arborist
bd/kh
CC: Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1429 Cortez Avenue 1434 Cortez Avenue 1436 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1437 Cortez Avenue 1428 Cabrillo Avenue 1436 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 f Burlingame, CA 94010
V /� ?'
(7:1t3 2 a bi- /o Ave,
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT APPLICATION
PARKS & RECREATIONDEPARTMENT
850 BURLINGAMEA VENUE
B URLINGAME, CA 94010
(650) 558-7330
The undersigned owner of the property at:
ADDRESS: 1433 cot -- V E
(print or type)
hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune morethan 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected
tree(s): r , /
SPECIES rep W CIRCUMFERENCE
LOCATION ON PROPERTY
WORK TO BE PERFORMED
REASON WORK IS NECESSARY
V,ew(0VaL
(Please use back of form for additional comments.)
NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S)
MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A
7$ 5.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME
Attach any supporting documentation you may have
(Example: Report from an Independent Arborist).
-Iwk�
/1/6W6�e
OWNER (Print)
ADDRESS 3 3 - ,aVE
PHONE `( t! 5 — -7((Q 1 -3
lZ 77------=-----------=- ----------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
CITY ARBORIST
PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR
CONDITIONS. W D 24 - itch box size landscape tree(s) will be required and may be
planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within
the allotted time as specified in Section 11.06.080, payment of $400
for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required.
NO replacements) required Contact the Parks Division at
(650) 558-7330 when removal(s) completed.
DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES
This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be
available at thejob site at all times when work is being performed
U
-�at�
Kathleen Wentworth
1429 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 phone 650.515.3410
April 19, 2012
Burlingame Beautification Commission
Attention: Karlene Harvey, Recording Secretary
Re: APN 026-051-010
Proposed removal of two redwood trees at 1433 Cortez Avenue
Honorable Commission Members:
I am the homeowner of 1429 Cortez Avenue, the house adjacent to and just south of 1433 Cortez.
I grew up in Burlingame, graduating from Burlingame Intermediate School and Mercy High School, Burlingame.
I have always valued the natural beauty of Burlingame and chose to bring my family to 1429 Cortez Avenue
more than 16 years ago. I believe that our neighborhood trees are an integral part of Burlingame's beauty and
should be preserved whenever appropriate.
However, the two redwood trees in question have caused and continue to cause serious problems for our
family. The trees have significantly impacted the quiet enjoyment of our home. Over the past 16 years, we have
suffered numerous occasions when redwood tree chunks and small to medium sized branches have been blown
into our yard. In December of 2010, a huge branch blew into our yard, managing to avoid damaging any of our
property on that occasion.
However, in May of 2010, we were astonished and dismayed at the magnitude of what the wind delivered to
our yard. A 2336 foot branch from one of the redwood trees sailed over our six foot common fence, hitting the
hanging utility cables, cutting through our backyard landscaping, bouncing off our patio furniture and coming to
rest onto our wood deck.
That's right — a 23% foot redwood tree branch from one of these two trees -- made a hard landing in our
backyard, damaging landscaping, patio furniture and our wood deck.
And we were lucky.
No one from our family was in the backyard at the time the 23%: foot redwood tree branch impacted. Our son
was safely inside and our golden retriever was spared from injury. The 23%: foot tree branch missed hitting our
house and garage, avoided crashing into any of our windows, and even the utility cables, after PGE inspection,
were deemed suitable for continued use.
However, since the 23% foot tree branch crash in May 2010 and the almost as large branch in December 2010,
we avoid using our backyard when it's windy and we worry for the safety of Sandy, our golden retriever, who
must use the yard, even if it is windy outside.
Our family would welcome the removal of these two redwood trees. As beautiful as they are, they are not well
suited to their current residential site. The removal of these redwood trees would bring increased ability for our
family to fully and safely utilize our backyard and would bring peace of mind to our entire family.
We urge you to uphold the decision of the Parks Supervisor/Arborist to issue a removal permit.
Very truly yours,
Kathleen Wentworth
i
Page 1 of 1
PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
From: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
�. Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:20 PM
To: 'Lionhouse@aol.com'
Subject: RE: Redwood Trees
We are in receipt of your email regarding the appeal of the removal of 2 Redwood trees at
1433 Cortez Ave. Letters regarding the appeal will be sent from our office to those who have
expressed an interest in this item after the time for appeal has ended. The item will be set for
hearing and placed on the May 3, 2012 Burlingame Beautification Commission meeting.
Anyone wishing to speak to this issue at the meeting will be invited to do so at the appointed
time of the hearing.
Feel free to contact our office at 650.558.7330 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Karlene Harvey
Admin. Secretary/Parks
From: Lionhouse@aol.com [mailbo:Lionhouse@aol.com1
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:28 PM
To: PARKS -Harvey, Karlene
Subject: Redwood Trees
I'll'" Hi Karlene,
"I
I think the property owner at 1433 Cortez Ave. has every right to have the 2 redwood trees
removed. I read the reasons for the removal and I think they are valid, especially since there
will be other trees to replace the redwoods.
Some of my neighbors have sent around a request to petition you not to allow the removal of
these trees; they would feel differently if it were their property that is being affected.
Some people just object to change, don't pay any attention to them.
Marcia Leonhardt
1461 Cortez Ave.
Burlingame 94010
3/30/2012
Kielty Arborist Services
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650 — 525 —146.4
March 12, 2012
Dr. Fernandao Velayos.
1433 Cortez
Burlingame, CA 94010
Site: 1433 Cortez, Burlingame, CA
Dear Dr. Velayos,
As requested on Monday, February 13, 2012, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on
two large redwood trees. The trees have grown quite large the large rear yard and your concern
as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The
trees were measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast
height). The tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality.
The trees' condition rating is based on 50
percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the
following scale.
1 -
29
Very Poor
30 -
49
Poor
50 -
69
Fair
70 -
89
Good
90 -
100
Excellent
The height of the tree was measured using a
Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread
Tree#1 with root zone against neighbor's garage.
was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided.
Observations:
Tree # 1 is a Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens) with a diameter at breast height of 66.7
inches.. The tree is located at the rear of the property close to the neighbor's garage. The
1433 Cortez/3/12/12 (2)
estimated height of the tree is. 65 feet with a total crown spread of 45 feet. The vigor of the tree
is fair with normal shoot growth for the species. The form of the tree is poor with a very large
buttress flare which is formed against the neighbor's garage. The tree was topped in the past
with very long heavy lateral limbs. The tree receives a condition rating of 60 on a scale of 1-
100.
Tree #2 is a coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) with a diameter at breast height
of 49.1 inches. The tree is located at the rear of
the property and shares a root zone with # 1.
The estimated height of the tree is 60 feet with a
total crown spread of 40 feet. The vigor of the
tree is fair with normal shoot growth for the
species. The form of the redwood is poor with
repeated topping events causing heavy lateral
limbs to form resulting in constant limb loss.
The tree receives a condition rating of 5 5 - on a
scale of 1-100.
Summary:
The two redwoods have grown too large for the
small rear yard. The trees have been repeatedly
topped causing trunk deformities and heavy
lateral limbs to develop. Tree #1 is obviously
damaging the newly remodeled garage.
Remove the two redwoods as trimming within
ANSI standards will not alleviate the limb drop.
As tree # 1 enlarges .damage to the neighbor's
garage will increase. Replace the trees as required by the City of Burlingame with a species
more suited for this small rear yard.
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
M-
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330
Fax: 650.696.7216 * Email: kharvey@burlingame.org
September 14, 2012
Eugene Podkaminer
1452 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: DENIAL OF THE APPEAL OF FOR THE REMOVAL OF TWO PRIVATE REDWOOD
TREES AT 1433 CORTEZ AVENUE
At the public hearing of the City Council meeting on September 4, 2012 the Council voted 3 - 2 to deny
the appeal and to uphold the decision of the Beautification Commission to approve the removal of two
privately owned Redwood trees at the above address. The Council's decision included the condition that
the specie selection of the two 24"box size trees are to be determined and agreed upon between the City
Arborist and the property owner.
There can be no further appeals to this decision. Therefore, the permit will be issued to the property
owner effective immediately.
If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330.
Sincerely,
13�—i44u-
Bob Disco
Parks Supervisor/Arborist
CC: City Council
►%Beautification Commission
Property Owner: Fernando Velayos - 1433 Cortez Avenue
Property Owners:
1429,1434,1436,1437, & 1461 Cortez Ave.
1408, 1412, 1428, 1424, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1436, 1437, 1441, 1452, 1456, 1464, and 1512 Cabrillo Ave.
1427 Montero Ave,; 1452 Bernal Ave.; 1616 & 1801 Adeline Dr.; 1560 Columbus Ave.;
and 1548 Newlands Ave.
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330
Fax: 650.696.7216 * Email: kharvey@burlingame.org
July 17, 2012
Eugene Podkaminer
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: APPEAL TO THE APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF 2 PRIVATE REDWOOD TREES @
1433 CORTEZ AVENUE - BURLINGAME
So that a full Council would be available to hear your appeal of the Beautification Commission's
approval to remove two private Redwood trees at 1433 Cortez Avenue, it was necessary to reschedule the
hearing for the agenda set for the Tuesday, September 4th City Council meeting.
The Council meets at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, should you wish to attend
and address the Council regarding your appeal.
If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330.
Sincerely,
Bob Disco
Parks Supervisor/City Arborist
bd/KH
CC: City Council
Beautification Commission
Applicant: Fernando Velayos - 1433 Cortez Ave.
Property Owners:
1429,1434,1436,1437, & 1461 Cortez Ave.
1408, 1412, 1428, 1424, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1436, 1437, 1441, 1444, 1448, 1452, 1456, 1464,
and 1512 Cabrillo Ave.
1427 Montero Ave,; 1452 Bernal Ave.; 1616 & 1801 Adeline Dr.;
1560 Columbus Ave.; and 1548 Newlands Ave.
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330
Fax: 650.696.7216 * Email: kharvey@burlingame.org
June 20, 2012
Eugene Podkaminer
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: APPEAL TO THE APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF 2 PRIVATE REDWOOD TREES @
1433 CORTEZ AVENUE - BURLINGAME
We are in receipt of your letter dated June 18, 2012 and a check in the amount of $255 for the Master
Fee Schedule. Your appeal of the Beautification Commission's approval to remove two private
Redwood trees at 1433 Cortez Avenue will be tentatively placed on the Council agenda set for the
Monday, August 20ti' City Council meeting.
The Council meets at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, should you wish to
attend and address the Council regarding your appeal.
If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330.
Si rely,
-Li
Bob Disco
Parks Supervisor/Arborist
CC: City Council
Beautification Commission
Applicant: Fernando Velayos - 1433 Cortez Ave.
Property Owners:
1429,1434,1436,1437, & 1461 Cortez Ave.
1408, 1412, 1428, 1424, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1436, 1437, 1441, 1444, 1448, 1452, 1456, 1464,
and 1512 Cabrillo Ave.
1427 Montero Ave,; 1452 Bernal Ave.; 1616 & 1801 Adeline Dr.;
1560 Columbus Ave.; and 1548 Newlands Ave.
Mr. Fernando Velayos Property Owner Property Owner
1433 Cortez Avenue 1429 Cortez Avenue 1434 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1436 Cortez Avenue 1437 Cortez Avenue 1461 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1408 Cabrillo Avenue 1412 Cabrillo Avenue 1428 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Eugene Podkaminer
1424 Cabrillo Avenue. 1429 Cabrillo Avenue 1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1433 Cabrillo Avenue 1436 Cabrillo Avenue 1437 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1441 Cabrillo Avenue 1444 Cabrillo Avenue 1448 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1452 Cabrillo Avenue 1456 Cabrillo Avenue 1464 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1452 Bernal Avenue 1616 Adeline Drive 1801 Adeline Drive
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1560 Columbus Avenue 1548 Newlands Ave. 1427 Montero Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Eugene Podkaminer and Erica Carmel
1432 Cabrillo Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
June 18, 2012
City of Burlingame City Council
850 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
We are appealing the request to grant permits to remove
two coastal redwood trees located at 1433 Cortez Avenue
(APN 026-051-010).
Our property is exactly adjacent to 1433 Cortez across the
easement and we look directly onto these two beautiful
redwood trees out of our kitchen, living room and master
bedroom (the picture on the right was taken from our
kitchen).
Additionally, a large adjacent cedar tree (shown at,the very
left of the picture) has been approved for removal to make
way for new construction next door at 1436 Cabrillo
Avenue. While we are sensitive to the tradeoff between
�— conservation and development, the combined removal of
these three mature trees adjacent to our property is
catastrophic for our views and will leave us looking out
onto our neighbors' houses instead of nature.
Old and beautiful trees like these remind us of why we
choose to live in Burlingame, and on this particular street.
Over 20 of our neighbors agree and recently filed appeals
to prevent the removal of the trees.
We base our appeal on the following reasons:
• The two heritage trees are mature and in good -to -fair condition.
• The majestic trees add value to our community, are an important public good, and are beautiful.
• These redwoods help support our environment and ecosystem.
• The applicants purchased 1433 Cortez in 2010 and in doing so knowingly accepted responsibility
for the maintenance required by these trees.
• Maintenance for these two trees is not onerous or an unduly burdensome.
• The applicants did not document any damage caused by these two trees to their house while'
seeking permits for an extensive remodel and addition. Neither did City inspectors nor the Parks
Supervisor express any previous concern over these two redwood trees.
These two majestic redwoods are the largest and most loved trees on our block. We would be very upset -IN
to lose these two special redwoods which serve as a great way to bring nature to our community. These
heritage trees add significant monetary and aesthetic value to our community, environment and
ecosystem. Trees like these contribute to Burlingame's recognition by the Arbor Day Foundation as a
Tree City, USA for the past three decades.
The primary reason that the owners applied for the permit seems to be that they feel that the trees may
soon damage their garage. Kielty Arborist Services, contracted by the applicant, rates both trees in "fair"
condition. An arborist who is familiar with these trees and who has pruned them on our behalf points out
that both trees are already old and mature and in good health. They do not grow rapidly at this life stage
and do not add much wood.
The applicants purchased 1433 Cortez in August of 2010, when the redwoods were in a similar state to
today. They applied and received permission for a first and second story addition in May and June 2011.
No mention of the redwood trees was made in the proposal nor was there any documented discussion
about the redwoods at the Planning Commission meetings in May and June 2011. The Parks Supervisor
had "no comments" on the proposed plans. These two trees should be no more of an issue now than
they were last year.
These trees have been here for decades, add beauty to our community, and are irreplaceable in our
lifetimes.
Please leave them be so we can all enjoy them. '1
Sincerely,
Eugene Podkaminer
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899
Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330
Fax: 650.696.7216 * Email: kharvey@burlingame.org
June 13, 2012
Fernando Velayos
1433 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: APPEALS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE REMOVAL OF 2 REDWOOD TREES @
1433 CORTEZ AVENUE
At the public hearing of the Burlingame Beautification Commission meeting on June 7„ 2012, the Commission
voted 3 - 2 to deny the appeal and approve the removal of two Redwood Trees at the above address based on the
findings of the City Arborist, an Independent Arborist report, and Chapter 11.06.060 (d) l and (d)7 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code:
1) Redwood tree #1 has a large root flare that is expanding and growing under the existing garage.
The tree will continue to grow and will cause significant damage to neighbors structure.
2) Redwood tree #2 has co -dominant leaders 20 feet from the base of the tree due to past topping,
resulting in poor structure.
3) Replacement with two 24 - inch box size landscape trees (no fruit or nut tree) will be required
as defined in Section 11.06.090.
This decision can be appealed to the City Council by June 29, 2012. Letters of appeal must be accompanied
with a $255 fee (made payable to the City of Burlingame) and delivered to the Parks & Recreation Department,
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010. If there are no appeals to this decision by June 29, 2012, the
permit will be issued.
If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330.
Sincerely,
Bob Disco
Parks Supervisor/Arborist
CC:
Property Owners: 1429,1434,1436,1437, & 1461 Cortez Avenue
1408, 1412, 1428, 1424, 1429, 1432, 1433, 1436, 1437, 1441, 1444, 1448, 1452,
1456, 1464, & 1512 Cabrillo Avenue
1427 Montero Avenue
Letters to Nominees of the 2012 Business Landscape Award
June 19, 2012
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 2012 Business Landscape Award
On behalf of the Burlingame Beautification Commission we would like to commend you
for being one of 14 businesses nominated to receive the 2012 Business Landscape
Award. We appreciate your efforts in providing a pleasing frontage to your place of
business.
`�- Although it was a difficult decision because all the businesses nominated were worthy to
have received the award, the Beautification Commission unanimously chose the Law
Offices of Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson, and Horn at 216 Park Road to be the
2012 Business Landscape Award recipient. The award and an original custom painting
of their business will be presented to the winner at the City Council meeting scheduled
for Monday, September 17, 2012.
The Business Landscape Award is awarded and presented annually at a designated City
Council meeting. It is the hope of the Beautification Commission and the City Council,
that you and other businesses will continue to enhance and provide landscape to business
frontages, and perhaps become the next winner of this most prestigious award.
Sincerely,
Burlingame Beautification Commission
CC: City Council
Embassy Suites
The Hyatt Hotel
Aerobay Office Center
150 Anza Blvd.
1333 Bayshore Highway
1601 Bayshore Highway
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
The SF Airport Office Center
Mills -Peninsula Hospital
Sorensen CPA
840 Malcolm Road
1501 Trousdale Drive
1220 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Il Picolo Caffe
Broadway Grill
Alys Grace
1219 Broadway
14000 Broadway
1350 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Willa Home
Crepevine Restaurant
Sapore Italiano Restaurant
1414 Burlingame Avenue
1310 Burlingame Avenue
1447 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Burlingame, CA 94010
Mondi Hair Salon
1205 Howard Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
June 19, 2012
Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn
Professional Law Corporation
216 Park Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: 2012 Business Landscape Award Recipient
Congratulations! It is with great pleasure that we write to inform you that your business
has won the prestigious Burlingame Business Landscape Award for 2012.
This award of distinction will be presented to you at the beginning of the City Council
meeting on September 17, 2012. City Council meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. At that time,
`.• you will receive an award plaque as well as a one -of -a -kind watercolor painting of your
company's landscaping donated by prominent local artist, Dale Perkins.
Your business was chosen because your property has been beautifully landscaped for
many years. The annuals, foundation plants, and established trees welcome your clients
and contribute to the enjoyment of all who pass by your offices on Park Road. With the
time and care you have taken to enhance your property, you have created a landscape that
is a model for Burlingame businesses. Thank you.
Please contact the Parks Division at 650-558-7330 so we can order the personalized
award plaque and, or if you should have any questions.
Kind Regards,
Burlingame Beautification Commission
CC: City Council