Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2003.03.06NOTICE `.. B URLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MARCH 69 2003 5: 30 P.M. CITY HALL Conference Room A 501 PRIMROSE ROAD B URLINGAME, CA A GENDA I. ROLL CALL H. MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 6, 2003 MEETING 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 A. Arbor Day - March 7"' - BUside Park - 10:00 A.M. B. Spring Garden Seminar/Saturday - March 15, 2003 - 9:30-11:30 A.M. featured speaker Matt Leddy - Department Head - Horticulture Department/CSM VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Appeal of the Denial From the Resident @ 2967 Mariposa Avenue to Remove One Private Pine Tree @ 2970 Trousdale Drive VII. REPORTS A. Park Superintendent B. Chairperson C. Commissioners M ��.CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME URLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 +�° t Telephone (650) 558-7300 Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 Fax (650) 696-7216 E-mail: burlrec@aol.com w. February 19, 2003 Robert Kary & Carol Kary 2967 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL OF THE DENIAL TO REMOVE ONE PINE TREE @ 2970 TROUSDALE DRIVE - BURLINGAME Your letter appealing the denial for the removal of a Pine tree at your neighbor's address, has been received at our office on February 18th. Your appeal will be placed on the March 6' agenda of the Beautification Commission meeting. If you wish, you may attend this meeting and address your concerns to the Commission. The Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "A" at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. Your neighbors are being sent copies of this letter, pursuant to City Ordinance, so they may attend the Commission meeting and make any comments. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Tim Richmond Parks Superintendent CC: Able & Nelly Yu 2970 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Russell & Noel Bayley TRS 2957 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Anthony Yeung 2960 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Jason Lim & Linda Hye 2980 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Robert W. Kary 2967 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 February 11, 2003 Re: Appeal of denial of application for removal of pine tree Application date: 2/3/03 Denial: 2/7/03 To: City fo Burlingame Beautification Commission Dear Commissioners, This is an appeal to the Commission for reconsideration of a denial by Steven Porter of an application for removal of a pine tree located in the rear yard of 2970 Trousdale Dr. The agent for the owners of the property presented the application. Able and Nelly Yu are the owners of the property. This same tree was approved for removal by a previous inspector for the city of Burlingame. (See enclosed letter, dated January 31, 1997). The undersigned, as well as my wife, Carol Kary, pursuant to the City Code, Section 11.06.080, are submitting this appeal. We are adjoining landowners who reside at 2967 Mariposa Dr. and live to the rear of the Yu's property. We are directly affected by the decision of Steven Porter. By way of background, we did not live in our home at the time this development was completed some forty (40) years ago, but our next -door neighbors were original owners. We have been informed that at the time of the original development, there were no trees in the immediate area. A local merchant was offering free Monterey pine saplings to new residents. The owners at that time took advantage of this free offer and planted at least fourteen (14) saplings in the rear of their yard and adjacent to the fence. They were planted to establish a hedge and were planted very close together. A diagram and photos are enclosed with this appeal. Without regard to what the future would hold, these trees have been allowed to grow to an estimated height of 125 to 150 feet with an extension fo roots and branches consistent with its height. We also find the intrusion of the tree in question to be an eyesore. Our home is a typical Eichler with large picture windows that look out on our backyard. The damage to the fence and intrusive roots do not represent the look we desire and that which is presented in the city code, i.e. '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 scenic beauty of the city..." We would appreciate your immediate action on this appeal because we would like to incorporate the removal of the tree with the other necessary pruning/trimming, which we understand cannot be done after February. In conclusion, we feel the removal of the subject tree is not contrary to the stated purpose of the code given the number of trees on the property, their size and proximity as well as the trees in the general area. Rather, the removal will go a long way to enhance the overall appearance of our area and would go a long way toward alleviating problems such as replacing a fence and expensive landscaping on a frequent basis and risks of damage or injury associated with falling limbs. I also believe the removal of the tree will promote a sense of community among the immediate neighbors rather than causing conflict which is a natural consequence of these issues. As one tree company representative stated, "these trees are a big mistake." We wholeheartedly concur. We would be happy to discuss the matter further should you have any questions. Sincerely, Robe and ary CC: Able & Nelly Yu 2970 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Anthony Yeung 2960 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Kay Lok (Agent for Able & Nelly Yu) 251 Park Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Russell & Noel Bayley 2957 Mariposa Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 ��¢ s !�o w.� . %ZC�vS L?q% AU - OWN 13,4 %( Y,4 le 19 OAy,�I 14omg- 0.1-i£ 1, l N OV�V- S 7-;Ola m a 0 00 +F-��� 0 %r ti/oM E lt�4, "*-�:4 11-11)Z. 1 4. CITY o� gy CITY OF BURLINGAME URLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 t Telephone (650) 558-7300 - Parks / Trees (650) 558-7330 yC-R►oRAT¢C �•- Fax (650) 696-7216 - E-mail: burlrec@aol.com February 7, 2003 Able & Nelly 2970 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE PINE TREE a 2970 TROUSDALE DRIVE - BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of one Pine tree in the back yard of the property at the above address, and have made the following determination: 1) Reasons cited for removal do not fall within criteria for approval. 2) Root damage to fence not significant reason to remove tree. 3) Pine needle and debris issue can be remedied by pruning/trimming. 4) Therefore, the application has been denied. This decision may be appealed to the Burlingame Beautification Commission by filing a written appeal by February 24. 2003. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Steven Porter City Arborist - (ISA #WC-3073) SP/kh CC: Jason Lim & Linda Hye 2980 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA Robert Kary & Carol Kary 2967 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA Anthony Yeung 2960 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA Russell & Noel Bayley TRS 2957 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA 01/31Y25e3 11:32 6506967215 BURL PARKS R REC PAGE 01 PROTECTED TEE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION PAM A "CAILMON DEPARTMFIVT 85o BUBLI1vGaM AVE,NVE E17RLJ9V'G,V4F-,, CA 94010 (650) 358-7330 '1%e uildorsiFC4 owner of the property at: ADDRESS- . P- pic.ake— , riot or type) N herby opphcs for u permit to remove or pntne more U=1113 of the crows or roots of (be following prececttd tree(s)' SPECIES C u } e ,���n� -CIRCUMFERENCE - `t LOCATION ON, PROPERTY AZ P Utiti t k Sc't r 0-a. WORK TO BE PEIfORNMD it gog, a h7n o /it tUALj �G�L/r ,CpaL�iR i na �ttiu C6%�r� REASON WORK IS NECESSARY ,� C 5� (please use back of form for additional corrnneur3 ) NOTE- A PHOTOGRAPN OF THE TizBE(S) DUST 13E SUBMrl7ED WITH THIS APPLICATION owNElz.it� I 6GL� AADRESS vl 71� 1 40a S� ( r --. _...-- PEItN1IT This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed treeY(s) in accordance with the provisions of tbo Urban Reforestation and Tree Proteatian Ordinanoc (MuAkipal Code Chapter 11.06). By srg�riugg tbd pern%it, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a co y of Chapter 11-06, and aerece to comply wrtb its provisioeu and all conditions listed below; end that all appeals have expired or been rasolved. OWNER CITY ARBOR]ST PARKS & RECREATIONDMECTOR CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box JIZe landscape tree(s) will be required and may be ,planted uny where on If the rnpperty. conditions are not met within the allotted time as specyUd to Section 11. 06.080, payrnune of $d00 for each tree into the tree replacement fund WR be required. NO rcpP14Ceneent(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (6S0) S38-7330when removal(s) completed DATE PERM> Z' EFFECTIVE PBRNaT E72 ES 4 copy of this permit must he available at the job site ar all tintes when work (s being perforated JnIV• JI. LVVJ J•V71 IYI - tJ P1If Ur)LL Ix 1 L111.VJL Irv. L 1 7V 1 . L SANDALL & PENROSE KENNETH W. $ANQAU 1740 Technology Drive, Suite 460 RICHARD H. PENROSE San Jose CA 95110-1372 DAVID G. KEY , RONALD STEININGER Telephone: (40a) 436-3310 THEODORE C. Z YNER Facsimile: (408) 436-3341 January 31, 2003 Able Yu and Nelly Hsu, C/O Angie Yu 2970 Trousdale Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 Re- ,Encroachment of Parse Trees Dear Mr. Yu an Ms. Hsu: Please be advised, I represent Mr.and Mrs. Robert Kary with reference to the encroachment of your trees at 2970 Trousdale Dr. onto their property on Mariposa Dr. In speaking with my clients, I am informed you have had ongoing discussions concerning the trimming of the pine trees against your back fence as well as the removal of at least one pine tree. I am also advised that a very generous offer to share the cost of the trimming and removal has been made but apparently rejected. As you have been advised, the pine tree farthest to the West on your property and nearest your rear fence is causing damage to that fence as well as my client's landscaping. The fence is being lifted and bowed by the roots. The roots are similarly effecting the rather expensive landscaping in my client's rear yard. The cost of repair of the fence and landscaping is estimated at over $2000, More importantly, all of the trees along your rear fence, are overgrown and have not been trimmed for many years. Large branches overhang onto my client's property to such a degree that they have reached the back end of the house. Should one of the branches break, severe damage to the structure will likely ensue. This is something which occurred in the past icom a pine tree on your uphill neighbor's property. Furthermore, since the trees have not been trimmed on either side of the fence, they have become overgrown. In even light winds, the number of pine needles blown onto my client's roof is significant. I would remind you that my client's home has a flat roof. When the needles are blown onto the roof, drains become clogged and water builds up on the roof. In heavier storms this has resulted in water flowing over the edges of the roof damaging the wood siding_ The extra weight on the roof is also effecting the structural integrity of the roof as a whole. As you know, my client's are in their seventies acid are not physically capable of accessing the roof to clear the drains. While in the past this had been a continual issue, the construction of additional down spouts seemed to temporarily cure the problem. However, that is no longer the case. As you have also been informed, the time to cut and trim the trees is quickly passing. These pine trees must be trimmed and cut before they begin producing sap. Local tree trimmers have estimated the deadline to be in mid February. Therefore, time is of the essence. 0,�OXG,re ^� I£TTf d�cr .2'/i cf,/o 3, Robert W. Kary 2967 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 February 11, 2003 Re: Appeal of denial of application for removal of pine tree Application date: 2/3/03 Denial: 2/7/03 To: City fo Burlingame Beautification Commission Dear Commissioners, This is an appeal to the Commission for reconsideration of a denial by Steven Porter of an application for removal of a pine tree located in the rear yard of 2970 Trousdale Dr. The agent for the owners of the property presented the application. Able and Nelly Yu are the owners of the property. This same tree was approved for removal by a previous inspector for the city of Burlingame. (See enclosed letter, dated January 31, 1997). The undersigned, as well as my wife, Carol Kary, pursuant to the City Code, Section 11.06.080, are submitting this appeal. We are adjoining landowners who reside at 2967 Mariposa Dr. and live to the rear of the Yu's property. We are directly affected by the decision of Steven Porter. By way of background, we did not live in our home at the time this development was completed some forty (40) years ago, but our next -door neighbors were original owners. We have been informed that at the time of the original development, there were no trees in the immediate area. A local merchant was offering free Monterey pine saplings to new residents. The owners at that time took advantage of this free offer and planted at least fourteen (14) saplings in the rear of their yard and adjacent to the fence. They were planted to establish a hedge and were planted very close together. A diagram and photos are enclosed with this appeal. Without regard to what the future would hold, these trees have been allowed to grow to an estimated height of 125 to 150 feet with an extension fo roots and branches consistent with its height. We moved into our home approximately thirty (30) years ago and have watched these trees grow to unreasonable proportions. After a few years in the home we noticed the roots of the tree which is the subject of the appeal were invading our backyard and ruining our lawn and other expensive landscaping as well as the fence between our yard and the Yu's. Ultimately the fence was replaced. Several years ago, we contacted our then neighbor about the tree. At that time a permit for removal was granted. However, and unfortunately our then neighbor failed to follow through with the removal. In the last few years we have noticed the same tree has become increasingly invasive, forcing the replaced fence to be lifted and bowed and, more recently, cracked such that it is in need of repair far earlier than would have been expected. Our house is on a small lot. The fence is approximately 24 feet from the house structure and only 10 feet from a permanent and expensive trellis. The tree trunk is approximately 3 feet from the property line. During the early part of the winter the wind, usually accompanied by rain, deposits overwhelming amounts of �- pine needles on our flat Eichler roof. This usually happens three to four times each year. We added two additional drains to the roof, but as the trees have matured, the drains cannot handle the load. As a consequence, water accumulates and overflows down the wood siding risking mold and other damage. The damage to the siding is further promoted by the fact that our house is entirely shaded due to these trees, such that we receive only short amounts of sun in the summer mornings. The roof is also subject to structural damage due to the enormous amounts of water left by reason of the needles. My wife and I are not physically capable of climbing onto the roof and removing the clog. Therefore it remains until we can hire someone to perform this task. Our gardener has been less than thrilled to help due to liability issues. Even with the removal of one of the trees, a problem will no doubt continue, due to the remaining trees and worse still if they are not significantly cut back. The damage and risk of further damage is real. This is supported by the fact that fifteen (15) years ago a similar tree on the uphill side of the Yu's property fell on our house. Fortunately, the damage to our home was limited, but it did completely destroy the fence. ``. We also find the intrusion of the tree in question to be an eyesore. Our home is a typical Eichler with large picture windows that look out on our backyard. The damage to the fence and intrusive roots do not represent the look we desire and that which is presented in the city code, i.e. '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 scenic beauty of the city..." We would appreciate your immediate action on this appeal because we would like to incorporate the removal of the tree with the other necessary pruning/trimming, which we understand cannot be done after February. In conclusion, we feel the removal of the subject tree is not contrary to the stated purpose of the code given the number of trees on the property, their size and proximity as well as the trees in the general area. Rather, the removal will go a long way to enhance the overall appearance of our area and would go a long way toward alleviating problems such as replacing a fence and expensive landscaping on a frequent basis and risks of damage or injury associated with falling limbs. I also believe the removal of the tree will promote a sense of community among the immediate neighbors rather than causing conflict which is a natural consequence of these issues. As one tree company representative stated, "these trees are a big mistake." We wholeheartedly concur. We would be happy to discuss the matter further should you have any questions. Si 1*1 l Robert ry CC: Able & Nelly Yu 2970 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Anthony Yeung 2960 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Kay Lok (Agent for Able & Nelly Yu) 251 Park Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Russell & Noel Bayley 2957 Mariposa Dr. Burlingame, CA 94010 Jason Lim & Linda Hye 2980 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Attachments: copy of approval letter dated 1 /31 /97 photographs from various angles hand drawn overview of Monterey pines P.S. 2/12/03 Just before posting this letter, the Yu's agent advised me that they are going to trim that portion of the treee that overhangs our property. While we appreciate this gesture it does little to change the fundamental problem. OR CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 '� .• Telephone (415) 696-3770 Parks / Trees (415) 696-7245 ••"°AT° Fax (415) 696-7216 • E-mail: burlrec@aol.com January 31, 1997 Robert & Carol Kary 2967 Mariposa Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF 1 PINE & 2 POPLARS @ 2970 TROUSDALE DRIVE The owner of the property at the above address has applied for a permit to remove 1 pine and 2 poplar trees, on the left side of the backyard, at the -top of the hill. Based on the following facts, I intend to issue the permit: 1) The pine tree is unbalanced and overhanging adjacent property. 2) The pinetree is not fiilly grown, and will father encroach an adjacent property. 3) The 2 poplar trees overhang applicant's and adjacent hourses, and will spread further with age. 4) Poplar trees have invasive roots which could cause future problems to the retaining wall and both houses. 5) The property is heavily forested and meets code requirements, therefore replacement will not be required. If you wish to appeal this decision, you may file a written request by February 12, 1997 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the enclosed Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter. Please call me at (415) 696-7245 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Richard P. Quadri Sr. Landscape Inspector RPQ/kh 1�1._ Enclosures N o 42atviiv� o ��j�,Poxr�i vT� o �reezl,,r r (oTi4�Ee- V.4 el v s 77(cer .va-- s h o WWI Vs Wo � 2 c ov a - -----� rt v CE-----i- E n!C & j) YY,4 �...__ OAXI-c-1 14o M f— =�t��.