Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2021.04.01• City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 " Meeting Agenda - Final Beautification Commission Thursday, April 1, 2021 6:30 PM Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 312512021 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final April 1, 2021 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION APRIL 1, 2021 @ 6:30 PM BURLINGAME RECREATION CENTER 1010 BURLINGAME AVE — Online 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 facilities will not be open to the public for the April 1, 2021 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 gborba@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 April 1, 2021. 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. Invitation for public notice: You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: Apr 1, 2021 06:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Topic: Burlingame Beautification Commission Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89025734576?pwd=c1 VuZGh2cTFnVHZMYStKRVJwK21PUT09 Passcode: 878796 Or One tap mobile: US: +16699006833„89025734576#,,,, *878796# or +12532158782„89025734576#,,,, "878796# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 890 2573 4576 Passcode: 878796 International numbers available: httpsJ/us02web.zoom.us/u/kHQuE3YP1 City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 312512021 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final April 1, 2021 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL a. March 4, 2021 Minutes Attachments: Minutes 4. CORRESPONDENCE 5. FROM THE FLOOR Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Update from Chair of the Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award b. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Appeal to the Approved Private Redwood Tree Removal at 717 Crossway Road Attachments: Staff Report and Attachments 8. REPORTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting: May 6, 2021 Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 312512021 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes March 4, 2021 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order via Zoom at 6:36 pm by Vice -Chair Kirchner. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kirchner, Kearney, and Bauer Absent: Commissioner Hunt Staff. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Superintendent/City Arborist Disco and Recording Secretary Borba Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Kearney made a motion to approve the February 4, 2021 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bauer and was approved 3-0-1. CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT None OLD BUSINESS 1. Update from Chair of the Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Commission Bauer stated that the Commissioners have the Business Landscape Award (BLA) Application form and the Residential Sustainable Landscape Award (RSLA) areas to inspect and reminded the Commissioners to submit two nominations each for the RSLA. Commissioner Bauer also reported on the publicity to date and stated she would create a flyer to post on Next Door, Facebook, eNews, and Instagram. 2. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update Commissioner Kirchner reported he and Commissioner Bauer send possible improvements to the Trees of Burlingame book to staff and commissioners. Arborist Disco informed the commissioners that the book is to show the unique specimen trees in Burlingame. Commissioner Bauer inquired if the book will be published or a digital format, and Director Glomstad replied that it would be both. Commissioner Kirchner suggested the book be published in the same format as the original book and inquired if the commissioners would help with wordsmithing. Arborist Disco stated he would like to see more pictures in the updated book. Commission Kearney reported she would like to see the Theme Block list in the book. Director Glomstad stated it would be interesting to use some of the pictures from the original book and show the trees today side by side. IIMMA A IRWIWIV None REPORTS 1. Director Glomstad Director Glomstad reported today was Arbor Day at Skyline Park and thanked Vice -Chair Kirchner, Commissioner Hunt, and Commissioner Bauer for attending. She stated it was very nice even though it wasn't the normal Arbor Day Ceremony, and a recording of the event will be posted on the website. Director Glomstad informed the Commissioners the Community Center project is on schedule. Director Glomstad stated there is one applicant for the open Beautification Commission position so far; applications can be submitted until this Friday. The interviews with the Council would be at the end of March, with a new commissioner appointed in April. 2. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Arborist Disco stated the City tree contractor would be removing a large Eucalyptus tree on Easton and Bernal next week. The tree has had multiple limb failures and needed to have a PG&E guidewire removed from the trunk before removal could happen. 3. Commissioner Hunt None 4. Commissioner Bauer None 5. Commissioner Kirchner Commissioner Kirchner reported on "Tom the Tree" replacement planting on Easton. He stated the Eucalyptus Citridora tree planted 15 years ago is almost 45 feet tall. 6. Commissioner Kearney None The next Beautification Commission meeting is April 1, 2021. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:08 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Administrative Staff � CITY OSTAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: April 1, 2021 From: Margaret Glomstad, Director of Parks and Recreation Subject: Appeal to the Removal of a Redwood Tree at 717 Crossway Road RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission deny or uphold the appeal. BACKGROUND In November 2015, the previous homeowner, at 717 Crossway Road, applied for a Private Tree Removal Permit to remove a redwood tree stating the "roots were encroaching onto water and sewer lines causing years of back up to cottage" (Exhibit A). The City Arborist denied the permit because the tree was healthy, had good form, and did not meet the Municipal Code's criteria. At that time, there was no indication of structural damage to the auxiliary dwelling unit (ADU). A second Private Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the City to remove the redwood tree by the current homeowner (Exhibit B). The redwood tree is growing in the backyard of the house and next to the ADU. The permit stated that the roots were "lifting the house/cottage and affecting the foundation." Included with the permit was an independent arborist report from Advanced Tree Care (Exhibit C). From a visual inspection, the City Arborist noted that the tree's buttress roots appear to be encroaching on the foundation and cracking the interior walls. Removal was approved based on the City Arborist's inspection, supporting documentation submitted by the homeowner, and Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance section 11.06.060 (d)(1)(7) (Exhibit D). DISCUSSION In the packet for this appeal are several letters from surrounding homeowners, three against the removal and two for the removal (Exhibit E), as well as the appellant's required documentation letter (Exhibit F). 1 717 Crossway Rd. Appeal April 1, 2021 The redwood tree is approximately 90-100 years old and is healthy with good structure and good vigor. The trunk is straight and does not have co -dominant leaders, and the buttress roots appear normal for the support of the tree. The foliage has good color and appears healthy and normal for the species with no signs of pests or disease. As described in the independent arborist report, the City Arborist concurs that any root pruning or installation of a root barrier to stop the damage to the ADU would structurally compromise the tree's stability and is not recommended. ADU Since questions were raised about the ADU legality, the City Arborist asked the Community Development Department staff to research the property. They found an assessor's report from 1939 stating the ADU was converted from an existing garage before the City code prohibited such conversions. Therefore, the ADU holds the status of existing, non -conforming, and is eligible to receive a current ADU permit for upgrades or enlargement of the structure. Based the status of the ADU, its legality does not pertain to the decision -making process to determine the outcome of the appeal. In addition, the Community Development Department is unaware of plans to develop this property, and no permits or design review plans have been submitted to the City for review. Action The Commissioners are asked to weigh the content of the staff report and supporting documentation and listen to the interested parties before making a decision. The options include: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the removal based on Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance 11.06.060 (d)(1) "the condition of the tree with respect to the proximity to existing or proposed structures"... and (7) "the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain." 2. Uphold the appeal and deny the removal based on the current health and structure of the tree. Exhibits: A. 2015 Denied Private Protected Tree Removal Permit B. 2021 Private Protected Tree Removal Permit C. Advanced Tree Care Report — February 3, 2021 D. City Arborist Approval Letter E. Surrounding Homeowner Letters F. Appellant's Packet . 2 ! EXHIBIT A� PROTECTED TREE REND, . PIKAJ PERMIT APPLICATION � [ 4- Parks and Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 J Date: (650) 558-7330 II 1 j �� I ��� / � The undersigned owner of the property at: Address: o a a hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1 /3 of the canopy or roots of the following protected tree(s): - Specie; o Circumference: ? Location on Properly. :. _ > r J fTr� l�oU c� ! 51 Work to be Performed: Removal Trim More Than 113 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: O N4 T a 4 41 <tG. • ;�� -T ,� �� Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a emetic rawing' of the oca on of the trees) on the property - must be submitted along with a $75.00 check to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe " 2 '# f required to support removal Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc). s . _ OWNER (Print) !.� >/ l `� PHONE (} ADDRESS' l EMAIL7A / " _- --__-- ---------------- PERMI OFFICE This permit allows the applicant to remove orprune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions ofthe 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 inN conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. i„ h �\? OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - itch box size 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 JL06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO rep lacement(s) 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 FFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. o4/2oi5revised City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department Ow\ 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLIIjgj ME phone: (650) 558-7330 - fax: (650) 696-7216 Wz gborba@burlingame oriz November 18, 2015 Susan L. Harris 717 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE REDWOOD TREE @ 717 CROSSWAY ROAD — BURLINGAME 1 reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned tree at the above address and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: 1) During my visual inspection of this Redwood tree I have determined that this tree is in good to fair health. The Redwood tree has good vigor, normal annual shoot growth, a large root buttress and is in good form. 2) The canopy of the tree is dense with excessive end weight and deadwood. I recommend the canopy be thinned by a professional tree service to reduce the potential of future limb failure. 3) Therefore, this application is denied. Adjacent property owner(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. The decision may be appealed in writing to the Burlingame Beautification Commission, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame or aborba a,burlingame org by November30, 2015 and should include any documentation supporting your request for removal of the tree. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, "':a"6Q-.co '�� Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Property Owner 709 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 721 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 712 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 714 Farringdon Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner 1280 Oak Grove Avenue 1286 Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 713 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 716 Farringdon Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 718 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1272 Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 EXHIBIT B PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL $URUNGAME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks and Recreation Department 1010 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date:_L- g, If 221 (650) 558-7330 - gborba*W r11ngamaorg The undersigned owner of the property at: Address: 71Z CpAg66 �remove / C/j 4�O�thfhl hereby applies for a permitprune n /3 fo�the opy of lowing protected tree(s): tP4� ®d Circumference: Location on Property k ! Work i be Performed; Removal10, ____ Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: � Is this Tree Removal Reques art of !Buildi=gProj�ect? S NO 1% Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property :: raided Along with a $100.00 payment to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removrd Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.). OWNER (Print)_ —j► PHONE ADDRESS EMAIL EaAl& h4A1 D2,00 Jima. -am (if different from above) ----- ^— — —~ PERMIT — OFFICE�c i m �'►► Payment Rec.0 11 ZlParment Method IGCi,� This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signinthis permit. the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply wh its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expir+edar been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORiST CONDITIONS: 24 - rock bOX size standard single stem landscape trees) (no fr&dt or ierti trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the pro perty If conditions are not met within the allotted time as spec#kd in Chapter 11.06 090.(b)(S), payment of $1,200. 00for each tree into the tree replacement fund wlll be required. P10 re i ee wnt(s) ,req_ uired Contact the Parks Division at (650) 5, f y330 when removals) are completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit inejJ'ecdve until after Building Commission review and approval. DATE FEkMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all knees when work is being performed rrsnsoe,ased ;A EXHIBIT C Advanced Tree Care 965 East San Carlos, San Carlos CA 94070 650 839 9539 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiona Hua 717 Crossway Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 February 3, 2021 Site: 717 Crossway Rd, Burlingame Dear Fiona Re: Redwood tree at rear of property I looked at the redwood and have the following observations and recommendations. Observations My inspection was conducted from the ground without climbing into the tree. The redwood was measured and photographed; observations and details are noted of the tree and site. The root crown around the base of the tree was inspected to determine the integrity of the roots. The redwood is located at the rear of the property between the main house and a second unit at the rear of the property. The tree can be seen in the attached photos. Coastal redwood, Sequoia sempervirens Diameter at Standard Height: 69.8" Height: 80 feet Canopy spread: 40' x 40' The redwood is in good health and condition. The canopy is thick and healthy, the trunk is straight with no co -dominant trunks. The root flare is large and spreading beneath the rear property. The root flare is undermining the foundation of the rear building causing cracking of the interior walls. The root flare has also directed surface water to the corner of the front house causing ponding at the corner of the property. This has been recorded in the Engineers Report by Lei Zheng, dated 10/23/20. Recommendations The redwood is in good health and condition but is causing significant damage to both the front and the rear property. Further damage could be prevented with root pruning and installing a root barrier. Root pruning would need to be done within a foot of the tree's root flare and would require cutting many of the structural roots that keep the tree stable and upright. This would jeopardize the stability of the tree and would have to be repeated every 5 to 7 years and therefore not a viable option. To prevent further damage to both properties, the only solution would be tree removal. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely Robert Weatherill Certified Arborist WE 1936a Advanced Tree Care 965 East San Carlos, San Carlos CA 94070 Cracks on interior walls �2\ • EXHIBIT D City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 1010 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 Jig - phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 bg orbakburlin aorg March 4, 2021 Fiona Hua 717 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 I reviewed your request for the removal of one (1) Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: The Redwood tree is in good health and has good structure with no co -dominant leaders or indication of disease. The tree is growing 1ft from an existing structure. The roots from the tree are encroaching on the foundation and there is signs of cracking on the internal wall of the structure. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the one (1) Redwood tree that is damaging the foundation of the existing structure and will cause economic consequences to the property owner if the tree is left to remain. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06.060(d)(1)(7). (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees, and interference with public utility services; (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. Replacement with one 24-inch box standard size single stem landscape trees (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and email or mail back BEFORE March 17, 2021. Adjacent property owner(s) within 100 feet of the property listed above areas ro eceivmg rioti ica ion o is decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its conditions or findings, must be filed in writing to our office by March 17, 2021 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 at the end of the work day on March 17, 2021, if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Bob Disco Park Superintendent/City Arborist Certified Arborist WE-6891A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor bd/gb CC: Adjacent Property Owners EXHIBIT E PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Noah Holmes <noah.holmes@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:48 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: 717 Crossway Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Arborist Disco, While I appreciate all of the things you have done for the city of Burlingame, your continued hard work and thoughtful decision making process, I wanted to see if I could share my opinion with you regarding a recent decision. As a homeowner in the city of Burlingame, one of the things I loved the most about moving here in 2015 is the charm and overall sense of character the city offers its residents. A very large part of this has to do with the city's longtime love affair with the trees that existed here, even before the city was established. When a local neighbor shared the news of the recent decision to authorize the removal of the beautiful and stately two hundred year old redwood tree from the property of 717 Crossway Road, my heart sank. I am saddened by the thought of our community possibly losing one of the greater redwood trees in the area. While I am aware we live in a free country where I believe property owners should have every right to do with their property as they well please, I feel that these new owners don't carry the overall character of the city in their hearts. It appears that the new owners only wish to update the questionable in-law unit that originally served as a garage when the property was originally built for their own needs, tree bedamned. Is there no middle ground? I lack the knowledge and wisdom in such matters, so I ask you as the city arborist: Can we trim just offending roots or find a way to keep this majestic tree yet allow for the new home owners to move forward with their construction? There are nights when I can hear our own resident owl hooting as it hunts for food or looks for a mate in the Oak Grove neighborhood of Burlingame. These trees serve as its home and refuge, along with various squirrels that frolic in our backyards. I would hate to see this tree be removed only for the sake of allowing someone to pursue an increase in property value or to shore up their garage foundation. The tree was'clearly there when the home was purchased just a few weeks ago. I would love to see it there when I retire thirty years from now. Regards, Noah Holmes Registered Voter Tax Payer Homeowner US Veteran Millbrae Native PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:27 AM To: 'Stephen Rosenholtz' Cc: PARKS -Bob Disco Subject: RE: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway Attachments: Independant Arborist Report at 717 Crossway Road.pdf Dear Mr. Rosenholtz, I have received your appeal request for the approved removal of a Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. Your appeal hearing will be heard at the April 1, 2021 Burlingame Beautification Commission (BBC) Meeting that is held via Zoom at 6:30 pm. More information regarding the BBC meeting will follow. Please submit any supporting documentation that you would like included in the Commissioners packets by Monday, March 22, 2021. I have attached the independent arborist report submitted with the Protected Tree Removal Permit 717 Crossway Road so you can see where the tree is at structurally and health wise since the last permit denial on November 18, 2015. Kind regards, O* Gina Borba a�!LiNlic Administrative Assistant II 1 Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 0r)k* From: Stephen Rosenholtz [mailto:srosenholt@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:30 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Subject: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Mr. Disco, I live across the street from the Redwood tree in question. I wish to appeal your decision to allow removal. It is a beautiful, healthy tree. Five years ago you denied removal and recommended thinning of the canopy. (I attach a copy of your letter of denial). Surely something could be done to save this tree. We have precious few Redwoods in Burlingame Terrace. Please reverse your decision. Thank you, Stephen Rosenholtz 712 Crossway Rd. Burlingame PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Stephen Rosenholtz <srosenholt@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:49 PM To: PARKS/RFC-Gina Borba Subject: Re: FW: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. That's fine with me, Gina. Thanks, Stephen Rosenholtz On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:47 PM PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba a,burlingame.org> wrote: Hi Stephen, I have just received an appeal letter from Stephen Crocker regarding the approved removal of a Redwood tree at 717 Crossway. He stated he would like to spearhead the appeal, but since I received you're appeal first I would like to make sure that is agreeable to you. Mostly it would be his name on the appeal letter that will go out and he would submit any supporting documentation. You are welcome to include information regarding the appeal it would just be under his name. Please let me know. Thank you, W.FUN Gina Borba OAt Administrative Assistantlll Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 1 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:23 PM To: 'Donald Doyle' Subject: RE: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. Hello Mr. Doyle, Thank you for your email. The City only issues the permit for removal of protected size trees. Due to the tree being on private property the City cannot dictate whom removes the tree or offer any recommendations. You as a neighbor can speak to the homeowner and voice your concerns however. It also looks like there might be an appeal against the approved removal of the Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road on April 1, 2021 at 6:30 pm via Zoom at the Burlingame Beautification Commission Meeting. You are also welcome to voice your opinion there. Kind regards, Gina Borba e-.,_WN. Administrative Assistant 11 , Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 From: Donald Doyle [mailto:ddcustomfab@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:22 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Subject: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms. Borba, I reside at 721 Crossway Rd. and do not object to the removal of the Redwood tree. However, I would like to be sure a reputable company with experience be used for the job. It is very tight clearances involved including the shared driveway between the houses. Thank you, Donald Doyle (650) 348-5913 1 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:30 PM To: 'stcrock3@yahoo.com' Subject: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway Attachments: Independant Arborist Report at 717 Crossway Road.pdf Dear Mr. Crocker, I have received your appeal request for the approved removal of a Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. Your appeal hearing will be heard at the April 1, 2021 Burlingame Beautification Commission (BBC) Meeting that is held via Zoom at 6:30 pm. More information regarding the BBC meeting will follow. Please submit any supporting documentation that you would like included in the Commissioners packets by Monday, March 22, 2021. I have attached the independent arborist report submitted with the Protected Tree Removal Permit 717 Crossway Road so you can see where the tree is at structurally and health wise since the last permit denial on November 18, 2015. Kind regards, 0• Gina Borba allRUN A * Administrative Assistant II 1 Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 __ 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 e,11 i Steven Crocker & Maria Patino 1280 Oak Grove Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Bob Driscol Park Superintendent/City Arborist 1010 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, Ca 94010 March 15, 2021 Dear Mr. Driscol, Regarding the notice sent to neighbors of 717 Crossway Road about your tentative decision to allow the removal of a large redwood tree at that address, we are submitting an appeal to reverse your decision and to continue providing heritage protection to the tree. That redwood is an iconic component of the tree skyline in the area and is in plain view as one drives west along Oak Grove Ave as well as from many other areas in the Burlingame Terrace neighborhood. It is a hub of activity for the local wild fauna including numerous raptors, corvids and small mammals. Your initial reasons for permitting the removal cite a building's foundation and utilities being affected by the roots of the tree. The affected foundation is of an old stand alone garage on an R-1 zoned property that was converted years ago to a one bedroom apartment (prehaps without a permit). For years the utility gas and sewer lines serving the apartment on the south and east sides lay above ground (not to code). The sewer line remains to this day above ground and lies exposed within two inches of the property line (not to code). The apartment has less than twelve inches of setback from the side property line (not to code). In effect, the apartment is a poorly located and poorly constructed building and yet its preservation is taking priority over preserving one of Burlingame's finest and oldest redwood trees. The large, beautifully symmetric, majestic tree ads a great deal of many types of value to our neighborhood while the building affected does not have as many years behind it, in front of it, nor does it contribute to the ambiance, culture and lifestyle we enjoy in Burlingame. We urge you to reconsider your position permitting the removal of this tree. Sincerely, Steven Crocker and Maria Patino 1280 Oak Grove Ave PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Josephine Park <jotwin58@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:02 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: In favor of decision to remove Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road, Burlingame CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I am the property owner at 1272 Oak Grove Avenue which is adjacent to 717 Crossway Road. I am in favor of removing the Redwood tree that is against the shared fence (no space between base of tree and the fence). The tree has caused and continues to cause ongoing damage to the shared fence, as well as the patio and pool deck on my property. I have had to replace the fence twice and repair it once. It is now in need of major repair again. Also, a pergola on my property is also in need of repair. The patio was replaced and repaired once and is in need of repair again. The brick pool deck, on my property, is cracked due to the roots from the tree and is in need of repair. Needless to say, if the Redwood tree is left to remain it will continue to cause economic consequences to my property. I appreciate you taking my input on the removal of the Redwood tree. Josephine Park 650-740-5214 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Rachel Constable <raraneta@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:29 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Tree at 717 Crossway Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Bob, A concerned and I believe well-informed neighbor stopped by our home on Crossway Road to share the context about the heritage tree. I'm writing to ask that you please consider letting the tree grow and not take it down. Thank you, Rachel Constable 728 Crossway Road PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Anne Scanlan -Rohrer <annesr@mindspring.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:01 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Redwood at 717 Crossway CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello, I understand that there is a proposal to remove the redwood tree in the backyard of 717 Crossway. I would urge you to not grant permission to do this. I am a long-time resident of Burlingame. i grew up here and resided here until I was 22, then moved back again in 1992. Lately I have been concerned about the growing number of mature trees I am seeing cut down on the streets. It negatively affects the culture of our City of Trees, it reduces habitat for birds, and adds to climate change issues. Redwood trees have been found to be important sources of carbon sequestration. We need them! Thank you. Anne Scanlan -Rohrer annesr@mindspring.com 650-343-1465 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Donald Doyle <ddcustomfab@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:05 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Re: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms, Borba, I wanted to respond to the appeal. I received a flyer in the mailbox that I believe came from the folks at 1280 Oak Grove. The flyer stated the redwood tree in question is 200 years old. I was told by the previous owner that his mother had planted that tree. I am not sure exactly what year, but not 200 years ago. I am including a picture of the tree taken in May 1985. In this picture the top of the tree is visible. I hope this information will help with the decision. Donald Doyle From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:22 PM To: Donald Doyle <ddcustomfab@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. Hello Mr. Doyle, Thank you for your email. The City only issues the permit for removal of protected size trees. Due to the tree being on private property the City cannot dictate whom removes the tree or offer any recommendations. You as a neighbor can speak to the homeowner and voice your concerns however. It also looks like there might be an appeal against the approved removal of the Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road on April 1, 2021 at 6:30 pm via Zoom at the Burlingame Beautification Commission Meeting. You are also welcome to voice your opinion there. Kind regards, Gina Borba k"'9 Administrative Assistant II 1 Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 9)r ,-IS 1 From: Donald Doyle[mailto:ddcustomfab@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:22 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba @burlingame.org> Subject: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms. Borba, I reside at 721 Crossway Rd. and do not object to the removal of the Redwood tree. However, I would like to be sure a reputable company with experience be used for the job. It is very tight clearances involved including the shared driveway between the houses. Thank you, Donald Doyle (650) 348-5913 EXHIBIT F Steven Crocker and Maria Patino 1280 Oak Grove Ave Burlingame, CA Burlingame Beautification Commission Parks & Recreation Department 1010 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA March 21, 2021 Commissioners, The issue before you is whether to permit the removal of an iconic, healthy, two to three hundred year old redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. (see photo of tree) The property has two structures with concrete foundations: a house in front and a small detached building in back. Both structures were built in the early twentieth century. Although both are under the tree, the smaller rear building is closest to the tree's root ball. The root ball has grown to a foot from the rear structure which was originally a garage and is now a converted one bedroom apartment. (see photo of tree trunk for relative distances of tree to house and tree to original garage.) The property was purchased on Oct 28 of 2020. A previous application to remove the tree was denied on November 18, 2015. Less than six years later, the new owners are again seeking to remove the tree. Of course there are many ways of viewing the issue at hand, but I would like to highlight two: a view of the new property owner trying to prevent future structural damage to a portion of their purchase and a view of some longer term outcomes of your decision. While property values here are high and few if any vacant lots remain in this city, we commonly see the purchase of lots with older homes for the value of the land alone. Older homes here are often considered tear downs for the sake of rebuilding something newer. Thus value of a property with old structures is largely attributable to the land not the buildings. At 717 Crossway, after we deduct the value of the land, most of the remaining value of the property will belong to the main house on the front of the lot. The converted garage, due to its condition, age, and location near the property line, will have less value. If the tree is removed in order to preserve the current investment in this old outbuilding, we will be placing little value on the old majestic, beautiful, iconic tree. Protecting the tree is more important than protecting the garage. Longer Term Outcomes: We can assume the new property owner bought the house after receiving disclosures, inspection reports, hearing realtors' observations, and by using their own judgment, with full knowledge of the existence of the tree and it's proximity to the converted garage and knew about the denied application from six years previously. The tree is on a large lot of 7,919 sq. ft. As property values trend upward, older structures on lots tend to be leveled and new houses constructed in their place. Older structures are adding less market value to their properties as the market trends upward, and will continue to disappear. It would have been likely outcome of the sale of the property for a developer to buy, tear down the old buildings and put up a new house around the old tree. But today, if the permit is allowed, we could end up with the exact opposite, no tree on a lot with an old house and an old outbuilding. On the other hand, if the current permit is denied, the new owner will gain experience with their use of the outbuilding and can target upgrades to the structure in a way that works with the tree. If over time, they discover the tree and the old structure are financially incompatible, they may need to modify or remove the structure. In any case that is something the new owner should have thought through with the information they had before the sale and made an offer accordingly. Let's not end up with the worst scenario, loosing an iconic tree to a outbuilding of marginal value. Sincerely, Steven Crocker and Maria Patino IFI-N ot dW yy Figure 2: House, redwood tree, original garage (L to R)