HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2020.09.03CITY
m
growwre
Thursday, September 3, 2020
City of Burlingame
Meeting Agenda - Final
Beautification Commission
6:30 PM
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Via Zoom Meeting
City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 812712020
Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final September 3, 2020
On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of
the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings
telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the San
Mateo County Health Officer on March 16, 2020, the statewide Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the
Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines
which discourage large public gatherings, the Recreation Center will not be open to the public for the
May 7, 2020 Beautification meeting.
Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. The
meeting video will be uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may
provide written comments by email to recreation@burlingame.org.
Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that
your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of
the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal
comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read
to the Beautification Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later
than 5:00 p.m. on September 3, 2020. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that
time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00
p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Beautification Commission after
the meeting.
All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record.
To Join the Zoom Meeting
The link below does not look like a hyperlink, but it is.
https://us02web.zoom. us/j/84939961290?pwd=cm5QTzBlbERMZjc4WG 1 EUG10WTdKZz09
Meeting ID: 849 3996 1290
Passcode:052028
One tap mobile
+16699006833„84939961290#,,,,,,0#„052028# US (San Jose)
+12532158782„84939961290#,,,,,,0#„052028# US (Tacoma)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 301 715 8592 US (Germantown)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 849 3996 1290
Passcode: 052028
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdZBgN7Hcl
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 812712020
Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final September 3, 2020
3. MINUTES
a. Minutes August 6, 2020
Attachments: BBC Minutes August 6,2020
4. CORRESPONDENCE
5. FROM THE FLOOR
Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has
jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments
on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown
Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that
is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by
the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is
optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time
limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers.
6. OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
a. Appeal to the Denied Removal of a Redwood Tree at 1268 Cortez Avenue
Attachments: Staff Report and Appeal Packet for 1268 Cortez Avenue.pdf
8. REPORTS
9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS
Next Regular Meeting: October 1, 2020
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities
Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting.
on the City's website: www.burlingame.org.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of th
should contact the Parks & Recreation
The Agendas and minutes are available
e
City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 812712020
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
Draft Minutes August 6, 2020
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order via Zoom at 6:30
pm by Commissioner Kearney.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kirchner, Kearney, Dinuri and Bauer
Absent: Hunt
Staff. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, City Arborist/Parks Superintendent Disco and
Recording Secretary Borba
Others: None
MINUTES
Commissioner Kirchner made a motion to approve the May 7, 2020 minutes. The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Bauer and was approved 4-0-1 (Hunt).
CORRESPONDENCE
None
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Appeal to the Approved Removal of a Redwood Tree at 133 Pepper Avenue
Commissioner Kearney read the Order of Business for appeals. Director Glomstad read the staff
report.
Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Kirchner stated the original arborist report in 2017 stated the Redwood tree was in
poor condition and another arborist report in 2020 stating the tree continues to be in poor condition.
He asked if the tree is declining in health. Arborist Disco confirmed the Redwood tree is declining,
based on how the top of the tree is browning out due to lack of water and draught stress. There was
also a grade change at the base of tree which is cause for concern. Commissioner Kirchner inquired
if the tree needed to use up 500 gallons of water a day to maintain its health. Arborist Disco stated it
would depend on the size of the tree. Commissioner Kirchner stated looking at the plans it looked
like there was a lot of excavation around the tree, and hardscape resulting in the tree getting less
water. Arborist Disco agreed the tree appears to be getting less water.
Commissioner Kearney asked for an explanation of cabling a tree. Arborist Disco responded that
cabling a tree refers to putting rods and/or cables in between co -dominant limbs and high in the tree
to prevent the codominant limbs from splitting apart. Commissioner Kearney inquired if the City
has any trees that are cabled. Arborist Disco stated the City does not cable trees. He noted that there
are some on El Camino Real, but they were not maintained and the cables have snapped. As the tree
grows it puts tension on the cables and the cables have to maintain and adjusted otherwise they
break.
Commissioner Dinuri asked how often a tree that is cabled has to be maintained. Arborist Disco
responded it depends on the tree and how fast it is growing but on average every two to three years.
Redwoods are soft wooded trees so the cables and bolts on the sides will damage the wood and will
need to be adjusted, and inspected to make sure the cables aren't frayed, worn or corroded.
Commissioner Dinuri asked about the cost to cable a tree and the ongoing maintenance. Arborist
Disco replied that since the City doesn't cable trees, he didn't know the cost. Commissioner Dinuri
inquired about the planning process and the 2017 arborist report. She wanted to know about the
process for determining what trees can be removed. Arborist Disco stated the ordinance states that if
the tree is within the footprint of a proposed new structure, it can be approved for removal.
Commissioner Dinuri asked if there were any plans for irrigation of the Redwood tree. Arborist
Disco stated there wasn't.
Commissioner Bauer inquired if the tree was solely located on the 133 Pepper Avenue property.
Arborist Disco stated it was but it is tearing up the fence and retaining wall on the shared property
line. Commissioner Bauer asked if the cabling, watering and maintenance of the tree would fall to
the property owners at 133 Pepper Avenue. Arborist Disco confirmed the property owner at 133
Pepper Avenue would be responsible for the maintenance costs.
Public Comments
Secretary Borba read an email statement from the appellant's sister Mary Beaulaurier on behalf of
the appellant Susan Beaulaurier. The letter read, `Burlingame's heritage trees are a part of our
history and our identity and what make this town unique and special. My family has lived next to the
majestic Redwood Tree at 133 Pepper for fifty-three years. We and the neighborhood and
community at large are enhanced by not only the aesthetic impact of its beauty and grandeur but by
the long list of environmental benefits and the positive impact it has on the ecosystem as a whole. It
has stood vital and strong despite the co -dominant leaders for over five decades and in all probability
much longer. Three years ago, Kielty Arborist Services made an assessment and recommendations.
They did not recommend removal of the tree but instead simple maintenance to support the tree.
They also outlined the appropriate measures to take in order to safeguard the tree during the
impending construction ( refer to Exhibit E, page 6) 1 wonder why three years later we are being
notified that damage was done to a "protected tree" during the construction. I don't believe that a
tree that has been vital for decades and deemed safe by an arborist would take such a drastic nose-
dive in a couple of years without explicit neglect and human disregard (please refer to Exhibit A -
Tree Ordinance, 11.06.010 and 11.06.020). Our family filed an appeal and tried to have our arborist
do a thorough and complete inspection of the tree. However, due to time constraints imposed by the
deadline and the owners of the property not responding to our request, we were unable to do so and
only able to submit a partial report. We were shocked and saddened to get the notification of the
proposed removal of this protected tree. We are distressed by the trend of the past year of the
removal of neighborhood heritage trees due to construction. Burlingame Park's beauty and appeal
has everything to do with the hand -full of large, heritage trees. This Redwood Tree is one of its
remaining jewels and we should be protecting it for our community and future generations to enjoy."
Eric Klein co-owner of the property at 133 Pepper Avenue along with Jennifer Colvin stated that
they have owned the property at 133 Pepper Avenue for the last 5 years. Their goal was to maintain
the historical preservation of the original structure. Their landscaping plans which generated the
2017 arborist report noted there were some very sizeable trees that could not be saved. In the original
plans submitted in 2017, the goal was to keep the Redwood tree and protect it during construction.
They never entertained cabling the tree because of the maintenance and cost. Their goal is to build
an environmentally sustainable property conscious of water use. They would love to keep the tree
for all the reasons the neighbors pointed out but when looking 100 years into the future the Redwood
tree is not appropriate for the area. They requested removal and replacement with an appropriate
tree that fits the neighborhood and will provide shade and beauty for all to enjoy. He also stated
their concerns for limb failure for his property and his neighbors.
Geralyn Beaulaurier stated her sister Susan was not able to make the call due to a family medical
emergency. The family is represented today, but her sister Mary can't get on to speak. She noted
that during construction there were some roots that were compromised, and she asked why they
weren't protected. She stated that the tree is a beautiful part of our environment and she doesn't
understand why the roots were damaged which has led to the ancient Redwood's approved removal.
She committed her family to watering the tree or contributing in any way they can to help support
the tree. She stated that the tree has been part of our lives for 60 years.
Eric Klein responded to the root damage during construction. The tree was protected during
construction by a fence around the tree area. The grading was in the original permit and there was
the possibility of some root damage but the intention was to keep the tree.
Commissioner Discussion
Commission Dinuri stated her concern is the health of the tree and looking at the vitality of the tree it
seems to have issues. She was concerned about safety and that the tree limbs could fall on the
structure or neighboring home. She noted that as part of the City Ordinance 11.06.060(d)(7)
economic consequence to let the tree remain would place a burden on the homeowner.
Commissioner Kirchner stated the tree is declining in health and it is not going to get better and he
didn't feel that asking the owner to take on that financial burden was right. He stated that he wished
that the Commission could save the tree but that he was leaning towards removal.
Commissioner Bauer is in agreement with Commissioner Kirchner and Commissioner Dinuri and
felt it was a shame to remove this tree, however it has been declining in health since 2017 and the
construction has hurt the growth of the tree. She noted that it would be an undue burden for the
homeowner to try and maintain the tree.
Commissioner Kearney stated she agrees with her fellow Commissioners since it had been
established the tree is a potential danger. She was also concerned about the burden to the
homeowners.
Commissioner Dinuri made a motion to deny the appeal because the tree has co -dominant leaders
with included bark, and the excavation at the base of the tree has caused the tree to become a
potential hazard and referenced Chapter 11.06.060 (d) (1) and 11.06.060 (d) (7) of the Municipal
Code. The Commission also required the replacement of one 24" box size tree be planted.
Commissioner Bauer seconded the motion. Motion passed 4 (Kearney, Kirchner, Dinuri and Bauer)
0 — 1 (Hunt).
REPORTS
1. Director Glomstad
Director Glomstad stated the construction of the Community Center is well on its way and on
schedule to date. She noted that they have removed a large amount of soil and some will be stored
and reused. It is anticipated that some of the framing will be seen in September.
There have been some challenges in the parks during COVID. The play structures at some of the
parks have been fenced due to the closure signage not being followed. Additional signage has been
posted at the Bay Front. The Recreation Division does have fitness programing and have helped the
local business community with offering park space to hold fitness classes. They are also offering
skilled base programing for youth sports and working with the schools to develop programming.
2. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist
City Arborist Disco reported the grass field at Ray Park is being renovated it will include a new ball
field and batting cages. Skyline Park will open up in August which will include a natural open space
and dog off lease area. The Parks Division has a new tree trimming and stump removal contact with
Timberline.
3. Commissioner Hunt
None
4. Commissioner Bauer
None
5. Commissioner Kirchner
None
6. Commissioner Kearney
None
7. Commissioner Dinuri
None
The next Beautification Commission meeting is September 3, 2020. There being no further business, the
meeting adjourned at 7:41 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Gina Borba
Administrative Staff
ANIL\\
SURLIt�fGAME STAFF REPORT
k,
RMJ5� 0
To: Beautification Commission
Date: September 3, 2020
From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director
Subject: Appeal of the Denied Removal of One Redwood Tree at 1268 Cortez Avenue,
Burlingame, CA
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends one of two options to the Commission.
1. Deny the appeal based on the original decision of the City Arborist that the tree appears
to be structurally sound and healthy.
2. Uphold the appeal based on the new information provided by an independent arborist.
When making the motion include the grounds for the decision as stated in the ordinance (Exhibit
A).
BACKGROUND
The Parks Division received a Protected Tree Removal Permit application (Exhibit B) on June 29,
2020, for the removal of a Redwood tree at 1268 Cortez Avenue. The permits stated tree was a
danger to children and neighbors. Attached to the permit were letters from neighbors supporting
the removal. There are no structures near the tree that are being damaged by roots. The tree has
a single leader and has good vigor and shoot growth. The applicant submitted work records that
the tree has been maintained by Bay Area Tree Specialist (Exhibit B).
The City Arborist inspected the tree and denied removal because the tree had good structure and
appeared healthy, stating that sporadic limb can occur and can be controlled by routine pruning
(Exhibit C). The City Arborist only performs Level 1 Visual Assessments when inspecting Private
Tree Removal Permits.
The denial was appealed by the applicant and the City Arborist asked that documentation
supporting the appeal be obtained by an independent arborist (Exhibit D). On August 14, 2020,
the applicant obtained the services of Kielty Arborist Services to provide a report on the health
and structure of the tree. An independent arborist performs a Level 2 Basic assessment which
includes a visual inspection of the tree and surrounding site and collects a combination of other
information.
Appeal for the Denied Removal of One Redwood Tree at 1268 Cortez Avenue. September 3, 2020
919191**116li<
The City Arborist routinely performs Level 1 inspection focusing on health and structure. When
he inspected this tree, this single leader redwood appeared to be healthy, and have good vigor
and structure. The City Arborist denied the application and asked for an independent arborist
report to reveal issues that a Level 1 assessment did not take into account.
In the report, the independent arborist noted the Redwood tree has caused significant damage to
the property and there were several close calls with children playing in the yard. He also noted
that the tree has been regularly trimmed and this has alleviated some of the end weight that often
causes limb loss. The independent arborist recommended removal as the only method that will
eliminate all hazards and liabilities since trimming the tree with ANSI standards or Best
Management Practices has not improved the trees form or lessen the chances of failure.
Limb failure is typically caused by included bark, decay, poor branch union or excessive end
weight. The independent arborist did not indicate that this tree had included bark, decay, or poor
branch union. Excessive end weight is the likely cause for limb failure. Trimming beyond ANSI
Standards and Best Management Practices may reduce the likelihood or chance of limb failure.
Below are the 2011 ISA Glossary of Arboricultural Terms mentioned above.
ANSI -
Acronym for American National Standard Institute.
Best Management Practices -
Best available, industry recognized courses of action, in consideration of the benefits and
limitations based on scientific research and current knowledge.
Branch Union -
Point where a branch originates from the trunk or other branch.
Decay -
An areas of wood that is undergoing decomposition.
Included Bark -
Bark that becomes embedded in a union between branch and trunk or between codominant
stems. Causes a weak structure.
Leader -
Primary trunk of a tree. Large, usually upright stem. A stem that dominates a portion of the
crown by suppressing lateral branches.
Level 1 Visual Inspection -
Visual inspection of an individual tree conducted from a specified perspective in order to
identify obvious defects or specified conditions; typically focuses on identifying trees with
imminent and/or probable likelihood of failure.
2
Appeal for the Denied Removal of One Redwood rree at 1268 Cortez Avenue. September 3, 2020
Level 2 Basic Inspection -
Visual inspection of a tree and surrounding site, inspecting the buttress roots, trunk,
branches, and crown using tools, if necessary, to acquire more information about the tree or any
potential defects
Target -
People, property, or activities that could be injured, damaged, or disrupted by tree failure.
Vitality -
Overail health. The ability of a plant to deal effectively with stress.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A - Tree Ordinance
Exhibit B - Private Protected Tree Removal Permit and Packet
Exhibit C - City Arborist Denial Letter
Exhibit D - Appellants Appeal Packet
3
Exhibit A
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
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. 1599
§ 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.
(0 "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
pennit 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 § I (part), (1998))
(Surlinpax 5upp. info. 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, shal I 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 § I (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 §
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 11.06.0910;
(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 § l (part), (1975);
Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998))
11.06.060 Notices and permits required for
remova 1 or wor stgni�irifry—_
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_
1 1.06.050
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 1 1.06.070 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 trees on erosion; soy retention; an tver-
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. 1599 §
l (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 § i (part), (1975): Ord. 1470 § 1,
(1992); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998))
237
1 l .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 cleric. 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 § l (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 shalt
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 (i 5)-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
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 andTree
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 steal l 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))
238
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 § 1
(part), (1998))
AIRL
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
PERMIT APPLICATION
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
Date. Z u 2 0 (650) 558-7330
1
The and igned owner of the property at:
Address: I kiF '�11 �-A y' 11- `.—
hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune
!' j
��--,� �, Exhibit B
yr✓ '-��,: r � �Q_.t�t-�.- � c
than 1V3 of the canopy the following protected trcAs):
Location on Property, �0 (' Y `�i �
Circumference: �—!q 1AC tv 5
Work to be Performed: Removal V Trim More Than 113 of the Crown
Reason Work is Necessary: �tJYie�(1
Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a uilding Project? YES NO VZ
Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be
submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal.
Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arbarist, pictures c f damaged structures,
letters c f concernfrom neighbors, etc.). (�
Owner (Print) L, (} `'_C` 1 0 �! 641 J T
+ Phone
Address_ Email ? ca. V) Co ie-
(if different than above)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERMIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY `� 't 7S'°c
Payment Rec. 7/ -& Payment Meiho �
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 Chappter 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 SIGNATURE
CITY ARBORIST
CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size single stem landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be
required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within
the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $1200.00 for
each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required.
NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at
(650) SS8-7330 when removal(v) are completed
BUILDING PROJECT, Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review.
DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES
DATE COMPIXI 1:D
This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a co y of 'this permit must be available at the job
site at all times when work is being performed owois reused
Dear Ms. Borba,
Our home at 1268 Cortez Avenue sits on a beautiful, well -forested double lot surrounded by
dozens of large and mature trees, including a redwood in the back -right corner of the property.
We have come to realize that while beautiful, the redwood presents a very serious hazard to
the safety of our family and our neighbors' families.
Despite the fact that we have cared for the tree, spending $3200 to have it fully pruned by a
licensed arborist, the tree randomly drops massively large limbs. In fact, shortly after trimming,
we were dismayed when the tree dropped a limb. To date the dropped limbs have damaged
property, but have not harmed anyone.
A few days ago, however, a large branch fell into our neighbor's yard while their two small
children were out playing and nearly killed the children. They were saved only by a thin cable
line. We have attached photos and a letter sent by our neighbor.
We have feared for our own children as well, since there's no telling when the tree will drop a
large limb, there's no safe time to play in the yard.
The tree also leans noticeably towards our back -diagonal neighbor, and we fear that it could fall
on their home.
We are further concerned about liability for anyone who comes onto our property or the
property of our neighbors.
Given the above, we are asking to remove the tree and replace it with a tree on our property
that does not pose a mortal danger to ourselves and our neighbors.
ank you,
�eva d Gabe Dalporto
June 9, 2020
To whom it may concern,
Over the 7 years we have owned our home, the redwood tree on our neighbor's property at
1268 Cortez Avenue has lost several large branches each year, dropping 10-foot or longer
limbs into backyards and the easement, damaging property in the process. Children often play in these
backyards and the easement and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or worse.
Just this last Friday, May 29, 2020, a large limb measuring approximately 19 feet snapped off
the redwood tree. I was across the easement talking to my wife when I heard this loud, thunderous
crash. I immediately thought of my own kids who were playing in our backyard. The branch bounced
off the cable line, hit the back fence, and landed next to the utility pole in the easement. My neighbor's
kids were literally saved by the cable line since they were playing directly in harm's way from the falling
limb.
While I love nature and all that it offers, it can not be acceptable to unnecessarily place people in harm's
way. I implore you to have the tree removed so that we don't have to worry in fear the next time the
wind blows.
Thank you in advance for your swift action in this matter.
Best Regards,
Chase & Kate Rowbotham
1261 Balboa Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
650.450.6321
(�/77
Tim ca Utz Uu; w�
,cr,, Ind yJ �Y of �Zf O-rn�'
��xe 2 y/�- at �o } & c am, ► %t-�-v
May 30, 2020
To whom it may concern.
Over the 9 years we have owned our home, the redwood tree on our neighbor's property at
1268 Cortez Avenue has lost several large branches each year. dropping 10 foot or longer
limbs into our yard. crushing shrubs, creating enormous holes in our grass, and damaging our
fence in the process. Though these incidents have been frustrating and costly, we have been
fortunate that until now. the damage has been solely to our physical property.
However, on Friday, May 29. 2020. a large limb measuring approximately 19 feet snapped off
the redwood tree. Our two young children were playing in the backyard at the time and the
branch nearly landed on them. Fortunately, the cable line directly above their heads caught the
branch before it could hit them. The branch bounced off the cable line, hit the back fence, and
landed next to the utility pole in the easement.
Had it not been for that single cable line, the 19' redwood branch would have struck one or both
of our children and caused serious bodily injury, or worse.
While we love the large heritage trees that make Burlingame so beautiful, we implore you to
approve the immediate removal of this redwood tree. It is a tremendous hazard to the health
and safety of our family, as well as that of our friends. neighbors, and anyone else who spends
time in our backyard.
Thank you in advance for your swift action in this matter.
Reg�irds,
_ /r
Laradsa 'KL4rane 4 tipinovich
f' 1266 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
AypMe Ah
•-
NIL-
s .20 »a'
-At *�
f.
4F
air
m
0
0
N
NIM
Cis 0 0
0 o o
m
OY
D
0
0 0
_.
77�
0
00
0 C)
0
Bay Area Tree Specialists Invoice
541 West Capital Expwy PMB 287
San Jose. CA 95136 US
408-836-9147
michelleCia bayareatreespecialists.com
Gabriel Daiporto
1268 Cortez Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
fM1r TOTAL OUF
63695 12/12/2018 $0.00
%STY
1 ZI12/2018 Prune 1
(Item #1) Prune{'^
Cahorto 20181210598 ? '-fMENT
VALANCE DUE
T>»s
Upon receipt
RATE
ENCLOSED
AMOUN
3.200.00
3.200.00
$0.00
Caltorto 20181210598
Monday, December 10, 2018
Gabriel Dalporto
1268 Cortez Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Mobile :310-463-3703
Salesperson: Porter Manny
4083932136
PROPOSAL
Please sign and
return to the office.
Bay Area Tree Specialists
541 W Capitol Expwy PMB 28' San Jose CA 95136
Worksite: 1268 Cortez Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
# Item _Description Qty Cost {
1 Prune 1 $3,200.00
All pruning shall be done in accordance with ANSI A300 Pruning
Standards.
B(Y
1. Coast redwood, thin canopy and deadwood . remove hazardous
branches.
'Haul away debris .
Signature
Date
Subtotal: $3.200.00
Tax: $0.00
Total: $3,200.00
Richard Smith Certification ISA Certified Arbonst WE-8745A r — - i *t: w <x1
TNf Certified Tree Care Safety Professional #589 mod ` Faeebook
Certified Tree Risk Assessor
Larry Van Groningen ISA Certified Artion9t WE-9151A
Qualified Applicator License 117443
Exhibit C
City of Burlingame
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010
BURLI�IYGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 - fax: (650) 696-7216
gborba@burlingame.org
June 29, 2020
Deva and Gabe Dalporto
1268 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: PERMIT DENIED TO REMOVE ONE REDWOOD TREE AT 1268 CORTEZ AVENUE — BURLINGAME, CA
Dear Deva and Gabe,
This Redwood tree appears healthy and structurally stable. It is not damaging any adjacent structures and does not
meet any of the criteria for removal in the Urban Reforestation & Tree Protection Ordinance.
Sporadic limb failure can occur with Redwood trees and are often controlled by routine pruning. A maintenance
program written by a qualified independent arborist can prevent future limb failure.
Therefore, I am denying the permit for the removal of one (1) Redwood tree at 1268 Cortez Avenue. The tree is subject to
the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06.060.
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 findings, must be filed in writing via email to our office by July 15, 2020 as provided in
Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06).
Sincerely,
Bob Disco
Park Superintendent/City Arborist
Certified Arborist WE-6891A
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
bd/gb
CC:
Property Owner
1257 Balboa Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner
1261 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner
1285 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner
1261 Balboa Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner
1265 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1265 Balboa Avenue 1273 Balboa Avenue 1256 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Property Owner Property Owner Property Owner
1266 Cortez Avenue 1269 Cortez Avenue 1274 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010
Exhibit D
PARKS/REC-Gina Borba
From: Deva Dalporto <devadalporto@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 8:15 AM
To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba
Attachments: Dal portoTreeRemovalAppeal-8-20.docx; 1268 Cortez Burl 8 14 20.doc;
ErikaPianimLetter-TreeRemoval.docx; Tree removal 1256Cortez.docx;
1268COrtezSupportLetter1274Cortez.docx; Rowbotham_Letter 2.docx; Tree Removal
Appeal_LBNS_07092020 (1).pdf
Dear Ms. Borba -
Attached please find our appeal documents for the removal of a dangerous redwood at 1268 Cortez Avenue.
Attached you will find:
1. A report from Kevin Kielty - Certified arborist #WE0476A detailing why the tree needs to be removed.
2. Our appeal letter
3. An appeal letter from our neighbors Lindsay Bierbrauer and Nick Stipinovich who are appealing the
city's decision alongside us.
4. A letter of support from our neighbors Dawnell and Chris Hester at 1256 Cortez Ave
5. A letter of support from our neighbor Erika Pianim at 1269 Cortez Ave
6. A letter of support from our neighbors Tad Armstrong and Anh Truong at 1274 Cortez Ave
7. A letter of support from our neighbor at Chase & Kate Rowbotham at 1261 Balboa Ave
In two other emails (due to file size) I will be sending:
1. Photographs of fallen branches. Including the recent branch that nearly hurt the children next door and
one from a 16-foot branch that dropped in March 2019, 3 months after the tree was trimmed.
2. The original appeal packet which includes:
o Our application to remove the tree
oA letter detailing why we need to remove it
oA map of most of the trees on our well -forested property
oA receipt from when we had the tree trimmed by a licensed arborist
oA letter from our neighbor requesting removal (a large branch nearly fell on her children)
o Photographs of the incident from the neighbor
o Photograph of the tree to remove
Thank you. Please let me know if you need anything else.
Best,
Deva
Kielty Arborist Services LLC
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-515-9783
August 14, 2020
Ms. Deva Dalporto
1268 Cortez
Burlingame, CA 94010
Site: 1268 Cortez, Burlingame, CA
Dear Ms. Dalporto,
As requested on Thursday, July 30, 2020, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on a
large redwood tree in the rear of the property. The tree has a history of large limb failure
including a recent failure in the children's play area. Your concern as to the future health and
safety of the tree has prompted this visit.
Method:
All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was not climbed for this inspection. The
trees in question were located on a hand drawn map provided by me. The tree was then
measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level
*, (DBH or diameter at breast height). A condition rating
(CON) is provided using 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 was paced off
(HUSP). Comments and recommendations for future
maintenance are provided.
Large redwood in the rear of 1268 Cortez.
1268 Cortez/8/14/20 (2)
Observations:
The tree in question is a coast redwood (Sequoia
sempervirens) with a diameter at breast height of
67.6 inches. The tree is located in the rear of the
property near the southeastern property line. The
estimated height of the redwood is 90 feet with a
total crown spread of 40 feet. The vigor of the
redwood is fair with normal shoot growth for the
species. The form of the tree is fair with recent tree
trimming being carried out. The recent loss of a
limb has caused significant damage to the property
and was a close call with children playing in the yard
being the target. The tree receives a condition rating
of 55 on a 1-100 scale (fair).
Large trunked redwood in the southeast corner of
the property.
Recent Limb Failure:
The recent limb failure resulted in a 19 foot long
limb failing. The failed limb was caught by the
communication cables from the power pole to the
house. Children on the neighboring property to the
southeast were playing below the cables. The 4.8
inch diameter limb lodged in the cables protecting
the children.
The history of limb failure may be due to a past
topping or poor trimming of the tree causing a
longer than normal limb length.
4.8 inch diameter and 19 feet long failed limb.
The limb was caught by the communication
cables preventing possible injury to children in
the rear of the neighbor's property.
1268 Cortez/8/14/20 (3)
Past Tree Trimming:
The large redwood had been well trimmed with the
limbs on the southeast side (neighbor's) being end
weight reduced. The trimming left the tree with a
shortened look as looking from the neighbor's. The
trimming was carried out prior to the recent limb
failure.
Redwood as seen from the neighboring property.
The wires in the lower photo are still wrapped
from the limb failure. The cables caught the limb
preventing possible injury to the children. This
side of the tree had been recently end weight
reduced.
Summary:
The large redwood continues to loose limbs on a regular basis. The trimming of the tree was
well carried out alleviating some of the end -weight often associated with limb loss. The failed
limb was 4.8 inches in diameter and being 19 feet long. Both properties have young children
that often use the property. The installation of exclusion zones on the two properties is
impossible as they would require fencing approximately 40 percent of the rear yards. In the age
of social distancing has elevated the need for children's private play spaces.
Remove and replace the tree as trimming the tree within ANSI standards or Best management
practices will not improve the trees poor form or lessen the chances of failure making the tree an
immediate hazard. Replace the tree with a Chinese pistache, red oak or red maple.
Removal of the tree is the only method that eliminates all hazards and liabilities associated with
the tree. 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
Deva Dalporto
Founder
deva(ai)mylifesuckers.com
.11IN-1ifesuckers.com
July 8, 2020
Revised: August 19, 2020
To Whom It May Concern,
We are writing to appeal the decision made on June 29, 2020, regarding the removal of one
redwood tree from our property at 1268 Cortez Avenue.
As stated in our previous letter, we live on a well -forested double lot with dozens of mature
trees, including another redwood. Our entire lot is surrounded by trees. We love the privacy this
affords us and delight in our shady backyard. We have requested removal of this one tree (out
of dozens) on the property because it is an imminent threat to the safety of our neighbors,
guests and family.
The tree is unsuitable for its location given its magnitude and size and the fact that its canopy
spans above four backyards, three with young children, and is therefore in a highly -trafficked
area. The tree is at a high risk to cause significant damage to person and/or property because it
unpredictably and regularly has limb failure. A problem that unfortunately cannot be solved by
"routine pruning" as requested in the denial letter.
To this point, in March of 2019, a mere 3 months after pruning by a licensed arborist, the tree
dropped a large 16-foot limb into our neighbor's yard. This indicates that even recent pruning
cannot guarantee the tree will not drop large limbs that are a threat to the health and safety of
anyone who comes near it.
The tree has limb failure several times a year, dropping large limbs up to 20-feet. Most recently
in May 2020, as stated in our emergency removal request, the tree dropped a 19-foot limb that
nearly struck our neighbor's two young children as they were playing in their yard. Their lives
were spared only by a cable line that luckily caught the tree limb just above their heads.
We had an arborist from Bay Area Tree Specialists come to the site after the May 2020 incident.
He informed us that even with a rigorous maintenance plan, the tree will continue to have limb
failure. Its location on a creek combined with hot weather makes it particularly susceptible to
limb failure. As stated in the city's denial letter "sporadic limb failure" happens with redwood
trees. We cannot afford to have large limbs sporadically dropping into our backyards where
children are playing. The magnitude of this tree is unsuited to a populated area.
Most recently the tree was inspected by Kevin R. Kielty, Certified Arborist WE#0476A, who
recommends that we "Remove and replace the tree as trimming the tree within ANSI standards
or Best management practices will not improve the trees poor form or lessen the chances of
failure making the tree an immediate hazard." See his full report attached in my email.
According to the City of Burlingame Tree Removal Process section of the website, the city can
approve the removal of a protected tree "if the tree is dead or risk to person or property is
imminent." The redwood in question is a risk to both person and property. It has destroyed
property in the past (our neighbor's smaller trees, our fence and the neighbor's sodded yard
have all been damaged by falling limbs). We fear it is just a matter of time before it causes
bodily harm to a child playing beneath it.
We ask that you reverse the City Arborist's decision and grant us permission to take immediate
action to remove the hazardous tree. We commit to replacing the tree with two 24" box trees;
trees that will help maintain Burlingame's urban forest, yet are not a threat to the health and
safety of the citizens of our city.
Prioritizing a tree above the safety of human beings is not reasonable. Should you deny this
permit upon appeal, we will hold the City of Burlingame and this Commission liable should
anyone be injured or property damaged as a result of further tree limbs falling from this tree onto
our property.
Sincerely,
Deva and Gabriel Dalporto
July 9, 2020
To whom it may concern,
On June 29, 2020, we were notified that the application to remove a redwood tree from the
neighboring property at 1268 Cortez Avenue was denied and we are writing to you today to
appeal this decision.
We do not take the removal of any tree lightly. The trees of Burlingame are an integral part of its
beauty and charm and it is not our intention to change that. However, when a tree threatens the
safety of the community it must be removed, regardless of the tree's health. The Burlingame
Parks & Recreation mission statement speaks to "creating a better community in which to live
and play," but the risk of significant bodily harm posed by our neighbor's redwood tree is
prohibiting just that.
The redwood tree stands only 2 feet from our property line and extends well over our backyard,
such that branches regularly fall onto our property at 1266 Cortez Avenue, creating an imminent
threat to anyone on the premises.
- In May 2020 a 19-foot branch fell where our young children were playing, only missing
them because the branch was caught by the thin utility lines. In addition to the risk from
the limb itself, had the utility wires or adjacent power lines fallen, our children could have
been struck, electrocuted, or our property subject to a catastrophic fire
- The redwood tree regularly drops limbs approximately 20 feet from the property line,
which has turned one-third of our backyard into a hazardous area
- The tree drops limbs without warning throughout the year, heaving branches 16' and
longer onto our property, several of which have been photographed
- The weight and velocity of falling branches nearly harmed two children, have broken
multiple trees, and bore a large hole in our lawn
- Pruning by a professional arborist has not prevented branches from dropping. Indeed,
and contrary to the statement of the City Arborist in the denial letter, branches have continued to
drop on multiple occasions after our neighbor spent $3200 in December 2018 for maintenance
performed by a well -qualified arborist. Even the City Arborist admits that such care only may
"often" control limb failure in a redwood, not that it will prevent such limb failure from occurring -
and which are occurring to this tree
- Future professional maintenance may incrementally reduce the frequency, or size, of
falling branches, but it will not prevent branch failure from occurring, as frighteningly
demonstrated just two months ago
The aforementioned should sufficiently demonstrate the hazard created by the redwood tree.
Even so, we were informed on July 8, 2020 that the City Arborist needed more information to
determine why removal is necessary "other than it is dangerous." This statement shows a
flagrant disregard for public safety and clear misapplication of the city ordinance which explicitly
states in the Tree Removal Process section of the city website that a City Arborist can approve
the removal "if the tree is dead or risk to person or property is imminent." Furthermore,
"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 removed 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 § 1, (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1, (1998))
We ask that you reverse the City Arborist's decision and grant the homeowners at 1268 Cortez
Avenue permission to take immediate action to remove the hazardous tree and allow them to
replace it with one or more trees that are in keeping with the neighborhood and most
importantly, the health and safety of residents. To that end, we also commit to planting two or
more 24" box trees on our property to do our part in maintaining Burlingame's urban forest.
Prioritizing a protected tree above human safety, including the safety of children, is not an
acceptable solution. Should you deny this permit upon appeal, we will hold the City of
Burlingame and this Commission liable should anyone be injured or property damaged as a
result of further tree limbs falling onto our property at 1266 Cortez Avenue.
Sincerely,
Lindsay Bierbrauer and Nick Stipinovich
1266 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame
8/18/2020
This letter is regarding the permit request submitted by the Dalporto's at 1268 Cortez Avenue for the
removal of one redwood tree from their property. We live at 1256 Cortez and support the tree removal.
The dropping of large branches is extremely dangerous to the surrounding neighbors.
Thank you,
Dawnell and Chris Hester
To City of Burlingame,
I am writing regarding a redwood tree at 1268 Cortez Ave, property of the
Dalporto's. The safety of my neighbors is my biggest concern. I am an ardent supporter
of protecting as many trees as possible, but when they are unstable and threaten safety
they need to be removed. It's my understanding that after a large branch dangerously
fell from this tree that the Dalporto's had an arborist come to inspect. It was determined
that the tree should be removed for safety. I believe this determination should be
supported.
Thank you,
Erika Pianim
1269 Cortez Ave
Tad Armstrong and Anh Truong
1274 Cortez Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
08/11/2020
Bob Disco
Park Superintendent/City Arborist
City of Burlingame
Park & Recreation Dept
850 Burlingame Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: Permit to Remove Redwood Tree at 1268 Cortez Ave Burlingame CA
Dear Mr. Disco:
This letter is in regards to the permit request submitted by the Dalporto's at 1268 Cortez for the removal
of one redwood tree from their property. We are next door neighbors to the Dalporto's and support
their request to remove the redwood tree. This particular redwood tree continually drops branches and
small limbs and poses a hazard to both adults and children in its proximity, particularly on windy days.
Please take into account our concerns and those of the neighborhood and grant approval for the
removal of this particular redwood tree.
Sincerely,
Tad Armstrong and Anh Truong
June 9, 2020
To whom it may concern,
Over the 7 years we have owned our home, the redwood tree on our neighbor's property at
1268 Cortez Avenue has lost several large branches each year, dropping 10-foot or longer
limbs into backyards and the easement, damaging property in the process. Children often play in these
backyards and the easement and it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously injured or worse.
Just this last Friday, May 29, 2020, a large limb measuring approximately 19 feet snapped off
the redwood tree. I was across the easement talking to my wife when I heard this loud, thunderous
crash. I immediately thought of my own kids who were playing in our backyard. The branch bounced
off the cable line, hit the back fence, and landed next to the utility pole in the easement. My neighbor's
kids were literally saved by the cable line since they were playing directly in harm's way from the falling
limb.
While I love nature and all that it offers, it can not be acceptable to unnecessarily place people in harm's
way. I implore you to have the tree removed so that we don't have to worry in fear the next time the
wind blows.
Thank you in advance for your swift action in this matter.
Best Regards,
Chase & Kate Rowbotham
1261 Balboa Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
650.450.6321
PARKS/REC-Gina Borba
From: Deva Dalporto <devadalporto@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 8:09 AM
To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba; Lindsay Bierbrauer
Subject: 1268 Cortez Ave - Original App to Remove Tree
Attachments: 1268CortezAveTreeRemovalApp.pdf
Ms. Borba -
In this email please find the original tree removal request packet which includes:
• Our application to remove the tree
• A letter detailing why we need to remove it
• A map of most of the trees on our well -forested property
• A receipt from when we had the tree trimmed by a licensed arborist
• A letter from our neighbor requesting removal (a large branch nearly fell on her children)
• Photographs of the incident from the neighbor
*Photograph of the tree to remove
Thanks!
Deva
Deva Dalporto
Founder
devaPmylifesuckers.com
www.mylifesuckers.com
°# PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL
t yid t.! .i': •B FA t: $
PERMIT APPLICATION
Parks & Recreation Department
850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010
J (650) 558-7330
Date:
The undefsigned owner
of the property at:
j Address' T1 V° � 7 ' r s i {. � C-A 9 (-1(-) 1 u
hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune m6re than 1V3 of the canopy 91f the following protected tree(s):
Species: Ke d c o
Location on Property 4«-.
Work to be Performed: Removal
Reason Work is Necessary:_V
Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a
Circumference: Z (+I( 1y
Trim More Than 113 of the Crown
• t i --- I __1_1 1 _�
- i v
Project? YES NO
Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be
submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal,
Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged.strrictures,
letters of concern from neighbors, etc.).
Owner (Print) —' 4�", t`� �^ j /G `fit' `� Phone
Address IRA k' CGf 4 l; �'r1--. Email
�1 L�.. �`t ► GO 1�, (l t�A 6� 06
(ff different than above) -'�
PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Pavment Rea Puvment Method
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 tC1 comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below,
and that all appeals have expired or been resolved.
OWNER SIGNATURE
CITY AR13ORIST
CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size single stem landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be
required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within
the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $1200.00 fir
each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required.
NO replacements) required Contact the Parks Division at
(650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed.
BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review.
DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMITEXPIRES
DATE C'OMPLEIT D
This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job
siie (it all times when work iv being performed. hiatus mired
Dear Ms. Borba,
Our home at 1268 Cortez Avenue sits on a beautiful, well -forested double lot surrounded by
dozens of large and mature trees, including a redwood in the back -right corner of the property.
We have come to realize that while beautiful, the redwood presents a very serious hazard to
the safety of our family and our neighbors' families.
Despite the fact that we have cared for the tree, spending $3200 to have it fully pruned by a
licensed arborist, the tree randomly drops massively large limbs. In fact, shortly after trimming,
we were dismayed when the tree dropped a limb. To date the dropped limbs have damaged
property, but have not harmed anyone.
A few days ago, however, a large branch fell into our neighbor's yard while their two small
children were out playing and nearly killed the children. They were saved only by a thin cable
line. We have attached photos and a letter sent by our neighbor.
We have feared for our own children as well, since there's no telling when the tree will drop a
large limb, there's no safe time to play in the yard.
The tree also leans noticeably towards our back -diagonal neighbor, and we fear that it could fall
on their home.
We are further concerned about liability for anyone who comes onto our property or the
property of our neighbors.
Given the above, we are asking to remove the tree and replace it with a tree on our property
that does not pose a mortal danger to ourselves and our neighbors.
I
e Dalporto
r5
ca
CIO
a77
�x
h
_k
S
V.t/
Say Area Tree Specialists Invoice
5441 West Capital Expwy PMB 287
San Jose, CA 95136 US
408-836-9147 3.
michelleCa)bayareatreespecialists,c€ m `
Gabriel Dalporto
1268 Cortez Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
53695 12.12, 2018 $0,00 Upon receipt
12i1212018 Prune 1 3,200A0
(Item #1) Prune
caftoruo 20181210596 yMENT 1200.00
BALANCE DUE $0.00
Galtorto 20181210598
Monday.. December 10, 2018
Gabriel Dalporto
1268 Cortez Ave
Burlingame, CA 94010
Mobile:310-463-3703
Salesperson: Porter Manny
4083932136
PROPOSAL
Please sign and
return to the office
Bay Area Tree Specialists
541 W. Capitol Expwy PM8 287 San Jose. CA 95136
Worksite: 1268 Cortez Ave
Burlingame. CA 94010
�# item Description �^ Qty Cost i
1 Prune t $3,200.00
All pruning shall be done in accordance with ANSI A300 Pruning
Standards
BtY
1. Coast redwood, thin canopy and deadwood , remove hazardous
branches .
'Haul away debris .
Signature
Subtotal: $3,200.00
Tax: $0.00
Date _ Total: $3,200.00
Richard Smith Certification ISA Certified Arbonst WE-8745A ,f �, Lft LA v"
Certified Tree Care Safety Professional #589 1 �" .� J Facebook
1-N Certified Tree Risk Assessor
Larry Van Groningen ISA Certified Arbonst WE-9151A
Qualified Applicator License 117443
May 30, 2020
To whom it may concern.
Over the 9 years we have owned our home, the redwood tree on our neighbor's property at
1268 Cortez Avenue has lost several large branches each year, dropping 10-foot or longer
limbs into our yard, crushing shrubs.. creating enormous holes in our grass. and damaging our
fence in the process. Though these incidents have been frustrating and costly, we have been
fortunate that until now. the damage has been solely to our physical property
However, on Friday, May 29, 2020. a large limb measuring approximately 19 feet snapped off
the redwood tree. Our two young children were playing in the backyard at the time and the
branch nearly landed on them. Fortunately, the cable line directly above their heads caught the
branch before it could hit them. The branch bounced off the cable line, hit the back fence, and
landed next to the utility pole in the easement.
Had it not been for that single cable line, the 19' redwood branch would have struck one or both
of our children and caused serious bodily injury, or worse.
While we love the large heritage trees that make Burlingame so beautiful, we implore you to
approve the immediate removal of this redwood tree. It is a tremendous hazard to the health
and safety of our family, as well as that of our friends, neighbors. and anyone else who spends
time in our backyard.
Thank you in advance for your swift action in this matter.
Regards.
Y G i
t_inds�aj7ie aer'andklIf'-5tipinovich{
1266 Cortez Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
This 16-foot branch fell 18 feet from the fence line into her backyard on March 14th,
2019. So three months after we had the tree trimmed. This is the scary thing. We never
know when it will happen and even shortly after trimming it drops limbs.
Camera .rll ^ 10:16 AM 9 48% ■
March 14, 2019
w:•
[T] Q) TLIi