Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2013.06.06AGENDA BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION June 6, 2013 @ 6:30 PM (New Location) BURLINGAME RECREATION CENTER 850 BURLINGAME AVE — Social Hall I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. 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. V. OLD BUSINESS 1) 2013 Business Landscape Award Selection VI. NEW BUSINESS 1) Appeal at 2220 Summit Drive at Hoover School site, for the approved removal of two private Oak trees. 2) Appeal at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, private Sequoia tree removal denied 3) Cancellation of July 4, 2013 Beautification Commission Meeting VI1. REPORTS 1) Staff 2) Chairperson 3) Commissioners VIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting_ August 1, 2013 NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at lease 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. BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION June 6, 2013 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Chairperson Dittman. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Dittman, Commissioners Hinckle and McQuaide Absent: Commissioner Kirchner and Hunt Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Glomstad, City Attorney Kane, Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Disco and Parks & Recreation Secretary, Borba. MINUTES - Minutes of the May 2, 2013 meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE The Commissioners received an email invitation to the Bocce Ball Court Grand Opening on Friday, June 14'1' at 11:00am. PUBLIC COMMENT Deborah Payne stated that the 2 Black Acacia trees at 2220 Summit Drive at the Hoover School site were not on the Agenda. OLD BUSINESS 1. Business Landscape Award Urban Bistro was selected as this year's Business Landscape Award winner with a unanimous 5-0 vote. Commissioners Hunt and Kirchner sent in absentee votes. Commissioner Kirchner as chair of the award will let Urban Bistro know by letter and Commissioner McQuaide will contact Dale Perkins to inform him of the winner and get started on the watercolor. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appeal at 2220 Summit Drive at Hoover School Site for the approved removal of two private Oak trees. Arborist Disco presented the reasons for his recommendation of removal of the two private Oak trees at 2220 Summit Drive. During his evaluation of the trees he inspected the health and structure of the trees and the surrounding area. The Oaks trees are estimated to be 100 years old and have had minimal maintenance and have long excessive limb growth. Oak #1 is in fair condition. He noticed decay in Oak #2 from past pruning cuts and the tree is in fair to poor condition. Open Public Comment — 3 minutes to speak Diane Haggerty, who lives across the street from the Hoover school site, spoke in favor of the appeal. She informed the Commission there is a lawsuit against the BSD and that Oak trees provide oxygen, noise buffers and homes for wildlife. Christine Fitzgerald, who lives on Summit Drive and is in close proximity to Hoover school, spoke in favor of the appeal. She informed the Commission there is a currently pending lawsuit entitled Alliance for Responsible Neighborhood planning versus Burlingame School District, San Mateo County case #519075 and to her knowledge Burlingame School District has not elected to exempt itself from either the zoning or the building codes of the City. Appeal Hearing — 10 minutes to speak Appellant Deborah Payne, who lives on Summit Drive right down the street from Hoover School, spoke in favor of the appeal. Her appeal letter to Parks and Recreation Director Margaret Glomstad and the Burlingame School District on May 9'h requested that the four trees remain and asked that the Arborist she had retained be allowed to look at the trees. She was denied access. Her arborist Ralph Osterling did not note in his letter any risk of disease, decay or danger of falling. He only mentioned possible disturbance of the roots during construction. Ms. Payne suggested moving the drop-off and pickup away from the trees so they can remain. She informed the Commission she was concerned about erosion, soil retention and diversion or increased flow of surface water if the trees were removed as well as the effect the tree removal would have on wind protection, noise, privacy, traffic and toxic fumes from vehicles and a reduction of acorns for acorn feeders. I" Respondent for the Burlingame School District (BSD) was Dr. Robert Clark, the assistant superintendent. He spoke against the appeal. He informed the Commission that BSD has a long history of accommodating trees in the path of construction and for every tree they have removed they have an agreement with the City to replace that tree with at least one tree. The BSD continues to experience phenomenal growth in the number of students enrolled and the Hoover School site, which was purchased in 2010, is necessary to accommodate that growth. The BSD worked with the community to design Hoover School over the 2010- 2012 periods, including public notices, town hall meetings and open houses on site. In the spring of 2011, BSD took action to open Hoover in 2014 as a K-5 neighborhood school. The design included a 6-car drop-off area at the sidewalk with a left turnout onto Summit. Following CEQA review, the public comments received expressed a concern over traffic and queuing in the street. In response to public comment the frontage was redesigned to include 15 drop-off spaces on school property and does not reduce the traffic space on Summit Drive. The new design was reviewed by the City of Burlingame's traffic engineer and he concluded it was a better solution to potential traffic and queuing. The design of the new building in the location of the old annex of Hoover required the removal of Oak tree #2. The location of the tree is just inside the footprint of the new building. Removal of Oak #1 is only required now with the revised drop-off plan. Dr. Clark informed the Commission the trees in their current condition pose a danger to students and surrounding pedestrians. Following construction and the removal of the significant root base, the risk will be even greater. 2' Respondent for the BSD was Richard Terrones, the architect for the Hoover School project. He stated that the BSD is before the Commission because of the cooperative nature of the relationship BSD has with the City. The BSD agreed to go through a tree removal permit process for any protected tree on the project site. He informed the Commission that the Town of Hillsborough did not recommend the current drop off location. BSD met with the Town of Hillsborough Engineer, the City of Burlingame Traffic Engineer and Police representatives from both Cities on the site. There was concern about the previous drop off plan. BSD was asked if there were other alternatives that the BSD would consider that the engineers could support. The solution that the BSD developed was for the extended drop-off to provide fifteen spaces along the curb similar to every other school in the BSD. 3' Respondent for the BSD was Dr. Maggie Maclsaac, District Superintendent. She informed the Commission that the BSD had to balance making sure that our students are safe and addressing some of the claims of the neighborhood. The new drop off area will provide an area that is safe for our students and that also is good for the neighborhood. In her opinion when it comes to a tree remaining or student safety, the safety of the student comes first. Rebuttal — 2 minutes Appellant Deborah Payne informed the Commission that her appeal letter dated May 9, 2013 indicated an appeal for all four trees and not just two trees and that in the appeal letter she asked that her arborist be allowed to go out and take a look at those trees and she was denied such access. She also stated that she believed the trees need to remain and this school location is not like other schools in the community because other schools have sidewalks and not little winding roads. She informed the Commission it is not only about the trees but it is about overall safety in the neighborhood. Respondent Dr. Robert Clark informed the Commission their construction schedule is moving forward and he needed clarification on the two Acacia trees that were not part of the appeal. He stated that there was no desire from BSD just to remove trees, but this issue is about the tree removal, not the drop-off configuration, nor the design of the building. Commissioner Discussion The Commissioners discussed the appeal. They asked Arborist Disco how many trees could be replanted and if the new Oak trees that were planted would provide acorns for acorn -dependent birds. Arborist Disco stated that the Commission can determine the number of trees to be replanted and that 48" box size trees will already be producing acorns. Commissioner Hinckle made a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the recommendations of Bob Disco, City Arborist, to remove these trees based on their health and structure, the inadequate care they have received and in consideration of the future use of this site as one of Burlingame's elementary schools, especially given consideration of potential danger to school children, parents, etc. She also recommended that the two Oak trees that are removed be replaced with four 48" box size trees planted in the same general area. Commissioner McQuaide seconded the motion as read. The motion passed with Dittman and Hinckle voting in favor and McQuaide opposed (2-1). The decision of the Beautification Commission can be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the Commission's action. In order to appeal, an appeal letter and $255.00 appeal fee, payable to the City of Burlingame must be submitted to the city clerk before 5pm on the tenth calendar on June 16, 2013. 2. Appeal at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, private Sequoia Tee removal denied Arborist Disco presented the reasons for the denial of removal of the private Sequoia tree. The tree is in good health, well maintained and growing several feet from the patio foundation. Open Public Comment — 3 minutes to speak None Appeal Hearing — 10 minutes to speak Appellant Judith Day, property owner at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, informed the Commission that she had an independent Arborist report done at the request of Arborist Disco. Mayne Tree reported cracking in the patio and that roots are under the house and could damage the foundation in the future. The house foundation is unreinforced. Tree roots have affected her neighbor's driveway and foundation also. Day also stated that the Sequoia trees are huge and are inappropriate in a residential area. She asked the Commission to grant her permission to remove the tree. She felt it was unconscionable to wait until the tree breaks up the foundation before she would be allowed to remove the tree. Commissioner Discussion The Commission discussed the appeal. The Commission expressed concern about losing big trees in Burlingame when they had not yet damaged a foundation. Commissioner McQuaide made a motion to deny the appeal and deny removal based on the aesthetic value of the Sequoia tree 1261 Cabrillo Avenue and based on the Arborist's report stating that the tree is healthy. Chair Dittman seconded the motion as read. The motion passed, with McQuaide and Dittman in favor and Hinckle apposed (2-1). The decision of the Beautification Commission can be appealed to the City Council within ten days of the Commission's action. In order to appeal, an appeal letter and $255.00 appeal fee, payable to the City of Burlingame must be submitted to the city clerk before 5pm on the tenth calendar on June 16, 2013. 3. Cancellation of July 4, 2013 Beautification Commission Meeting The Meeting was rescheduled for Tuesday, July 2, 2013. REPORTS 1. Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Disco 1. Bocce Ball Court Grand Opening Friday, June 141h 2. Parking lot paving project at Cuernavaca is complete. 3. City planted and double staked 8 Elm trees on El Camino Real for Caltrans. 3. Commissioner Dittman None 4. Commissioner Hinckle Commissioner Hinckle would like to address the pots on Broadway at a future meeting. 5. Commissioner Kirchner Absent 6. Commissioner McQuaide Commissioner McQuaide stated that on Broadway the first Sunday of every month she picks up trash, prunes, plants, feeds and waters. 7. Commissioner Hunt Absent The next Beautification Commission meeting is July 2, 2013. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Recording Secretary AGENDA BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION June 6, 2013 @ 6:30 PM (New Location) BURLINGAME RECREATION CENTER 850 BURLINGAME AVE — Social Hall I. ROLL CALL II. MINUTES III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. FROM THE FLOOR Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission hasjurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Addilional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes tip 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 la three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the lime limit in light of the number ofanlicipaled speakers. V. OLD BUSINESS 1) 2013 Business Landscape Award Selection VI. NEW BUSINESS 1) Appeal at 2220 Summit Drive at Hoover School site, for the approved removal of two private Oak. trees. 2) Appeal at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, private Sequoia tree removal denied 3) Cancellation of July 4, 2013 Beautification Commission Meeting VII. REPORTS 1) Staff 2) Chairperson 3) Commissioners VIII. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting_: August 1, 2013 NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodationsfor disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept, at (650) 558-7330 at lease 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal oSice hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's websile: wwmr. burlinizame. are. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda ivill be made available for public inspection at 830 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. CITY O� B4}RLINGAh1E STAFF REPORT +ins to JUhC' TO: Burfinyame Beautification Commission DATE: June 6, 2013 FROM: Bob Disco Park Supervisor/citySupervisor/city Arborist SUBJECT: Removal of two Ouercus a rifolia at 2220 Summit Drive BACKGROUND On May 3, 2013 the property owned by the Burlingame School District at 2220 Summit Drive (Hoover Elementary School) applied for a Private Tree Removal Permit for the removal of four protected trees in the front of the property to make way for a new frontage and drop off area for the school. Due to traffic concerns expressed, the City Engineers in Hillsborough and in Burlingame recommended a new drop off area which now impacts the trees. Because Hoover School as an educational facility it is subject to regulation by the State Department of Education. The local school district may choose to exempt itself from the local (i.e., City) regulatory processes if it so chooses. It has been the practice of the Burlingame School District to work with the local regulatory process as much as possible. Therefore, the Burlingame School District applied for the removal of four trees. Two of the trees are Acacia melanoxylon-B lack Acacia- that are approved for removal and are not subject of appeal at this time. The two trees subject to this appeal are both Quercus agrifolia —Coast Live Oak. Both trees have poor structure and lack a strong central leader. These trees have been subject to poor maintenance practices and inappropriate pruning cuts. Tree #1 is in fair condition and is growing with a significant uphill lean. The main leader shows signs of compression and cracking at the horizontal bend. Vertical cracks are visible in the upper limbs and branches. • Tree #2 is in fair to poor condition, has poor structure, weak attachments at the base, and long horizontal limbs with excessive end weight. It also has a severe uphill lean. Decay is visible in the upper limbs from past pruning cuts, and poor maintenance has resulted in epicormic or watersprouts rising from the branches. Approval to remove these trees is based on their health and structure, and consideration of the future use of this site when developed. This area will soon become a high target area. Children, pedestrians, and cars will be affected by any tree failure. New paving and a retaining wall are scheduled during development. Any soil disruption near or around these trees could sever roots, decreasing stability and increasing the potential for failure. The asymmetric canopy, signs of decay, high target area, current and future site development were all factors in approving removal. ATTACHMENTS Mayne Tree Arborist Report Site plan of future development Photos City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330 Fax: 650.696.7216 * Email: GBorba(a7Burlingame.ora May 10, 2013 Robert Clark Burlingame School District I7I5 Quesada Way Burlingame, CA 94010 RE. REQVEST TOREMOVETWO QUERCUSAGRIFOLIAANDTWOACACMMEL.4NOXTLONTREES Q 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE - BU.RLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned trees, on the property at the above address, and have made the following determination: 1) The Quercus agrifolia — Coast Live Oak: Both sets oftrees have poor structure and lack a strong central leader. These trees have been subject to poor maintenance practices and inappropriate pruning cuts. Tree #1 is in fair condition with long horizontal limbs. The main leader shows signs of compression and cracking at the horizontal bend. Vertical cracks are visible on the upper limbs and branches. Tree #2 is in fair to poor condition and has poor structure and long horizontal Iimbs with excessive end weight. Decay is visible in upper limb from past pruning cuts. Poor maintenance has resulted in epicormic shoots arising from. branches. Pruning to eliminate structural problems will result in an unbalanced upper crown and will increase the potential for failure in this future high target area. 2) Acacia melanoxytlon — Black Acacia: Black Acacias are fast growing, dense trees with brittle branches and are typically recommended for removal because of their high failure rate. 3) Replacement with at least four 24-inch box size Oak trees will be required to be planted in the same general area on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the trees subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self addressed envelope BEFORE May 24, 2013. 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 to our office by May 24, 2013 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinwice (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06), The permit will be issued on May 24, 2013 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincer , Gel) w Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb cc: Property Owners within 100ft radius of Hoover School. _ F` t' �r� � i -. •n,�. r , � +,. -_ y ,fir, i. i �. �+/� g�� "` SPY`'$ r #S ,� � •'• .. � . �* r.�_'' e .- g. Y. ram,,• - �r` �+ �'v J �_ � _, Y. r s ` `7'��rF '-y - w+ ���-.t• �. } Yzl' .Y �-� a r 7 t.ra, � . �(�3•- h -'i` � .� ' !l � _ � sir _- _ _ t A4' -#- I .Mayne Tree'Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 CERTIFIED FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6311 7EROMEY INGALLS TELEPHONE: (650) 593.4400 CONS ULTANT/ESTI hi ATO R May B, 2013 FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 EMAIL: info@mnynetree.com Mr. Carlos Rojas 1103 Juanita Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Rojas, RE: HOOVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE, BURLINGAME On May 2, 2013, we met at the above -referenced school to inspect 4 trees and the potential construction impacts. The proposal is to remove the existing annex above Summit Drive, add 2 feet to the road width, an. 8-foot wide drop -of lane, and a 4-foot wide sidewalk plus a retaining wall within 3-foot wide footing. The total added footage from the existing road will be 17 feet. Three of the trees (#1, #2, and #4), are within this excavation footprint. Tree #3 is 18 feet from the existing road but with excavation 1 foot away, this tree will need to be removed due to root and support loss (see the site plan for tree numbers). Each tree was inspected for general health and structure (see the tree survey). You will also find comments to support the general findings of complete removal, also other potential impacts from clearance pruning, etc. I think this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, zIETY 0 Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborist WE #0119A boy ° o` Certified Forester #1925 UJ No, WE-0119A m rn Np,192 RLH: pmd 2220 Summit Dr., Burlingame Tree Survey May 6, 2013 Tree number one is a 28- and 14-inch live oak, Quercus agrifolia. The tree has a severe uphill lean up to the edge of the existing parking lot. The canopy has been pruned back for clearance. The trunk is 13 feet from the edge of the existing curb and, with the proposed 17-foot cut, this tree is in the way of excavation. Cutting any roots within 8 feet of the trunk will have a significant impact to tree support. Tree number two is a 24-, 19.0-, 17.7-inch live oak. The large trunk leans severely uphill and to the edge of the parking area. The 3 trunks are over -heavy and with a weakened connection this tree could fail. This tree will be in the way of the proposed structure. The trunk is 15 feet from the existing curb and, again, with the proposed 17- foot cut, the tree is in the excavation footprint. Tree number three is a 16.9-Inch black acacia, Acacia melanoxylon. This tree is next to the existing annex and is 18 feet from the existing curb, which puts the limited proposed excavation 1 foot away. This will significantly impact root support. This along with the damage from the annex demolition will result in a dead and hazardous tree. Tree number four is a 15.5-, 12.4-inch black acacia. This tree had a third trunk removed in the past and has allowed decay fungi into the trunk. This is 16 feet from the existing curb and, with the proposed 17-foot cut, will put this tree in the excavation footprint. V it, n•-Q-- EyWygw Sh....l c1 . o R! 1 l 1 n C Hoover Elementary School I+I 1 e R i O N[ S J.RCHIiE• 7220 3— I-dv.m., u 9W 10 May 9, 2013 Ms. Margaret Glomstad Director of Parks and Recreation City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Glomstad, This letter serves as a written appeal that the protected -size trees located on the Hoover site be saved. I received notification from City Manager Lisa Goldman today indicating that the trees are recommended for removal due to decay. As there is more than one tree and they are not all the same species, I would like to have my certified arborist look at these protected -size trees and their conditions. I would also like a copy of the arborist's report that was provided to the City of Burlingame/Burlingame School District on the condition of each of the protected -size trees which were recommended for removal. Kindly let me know how this may be arranged. Please provide copies of these reports so that we can proceed on my end. In addition I need to know how the arborist can obtain access to the trees. I have been told that the City Beautification Committee meetOJunereport for the City along with access to the protected -size trees will be needed pThank you. Sincerely, a<� / �� Deborah Payne 2325 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 cc: Mayor Ann Keighran and the Burlingame City Council, City Manager, Lisa Goldman, Burlingame Beautification Commission May 19, 2013 Bob Disco, Parks Supervisor/City Arborist Parks and Recreation Dept. Parks Division 850 Burlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Disco, We, as neighbors across the street from said trees described in your May 10,13 letter back to Robt. Clark, who requested the right to cut them down as part of the elementary school project, request to appeal your decision to grant Mr. Clark's request for cut down. We want the trees to stay, undisturbed, except for ivy cut out. We have approximately 20 oaks of various ages on our property. Based on my first effort (Diane) to understand and care for my oaks back in 1986, where the owner of Davey Tree Company, came to look them over and advise, he came with a claw hammer and began to chunk out pieces of perfectly good bark from the nearest tree. His quick interpretation was, "See here, this is decay." Being very eager since a child to grow and understand plants and educate myself along the way, I said, "Stop." Obviously, that was a man whose job was to cut, not to preserve, enhance, etc. That tree is in fine shape for 100 and doing well with care. I cannot tell you how many times I have been advised wrongly about these trees. But, I know what I am doing now, and have, for some time. So, perhaps it was not you, yourself, who examined those 2 oaks. I am sure you have numerous tree people who could have made the recommendation. But, if you take another look, I am positive that you will see that the oak on the left is in, not only good, but, excellent condition, green, bushy, stable, fine trunk. The one on the left needs some trimming of some long branches perhaps, but, those are the branches reaching up the hill for the sun, you know, photosynthesis. Trees on a hill do not grow symmetrically on all sides equally as on flat ground. Originally, I was from Thousand Oaks, Ca, and I can tell you there is a preservation effort there and has been for the 45 yrs. that I know of... No ivy, or anything else growing around these California beauties. The main shopping mall was built around the trees, w/o roads, or buildings usurping their space. Kook, there are always going to be children and schools, and building projects, but, cutting into my 17' street to enlarge it and cut down the old oaks does not do any arborist, citizen, or city which has oaks on its emblem proud. Right at the other end of the block, there is access. Please take another Iook, and, thank you, Mr. Disco. Sincerely, Dr. Joe and Diane Haggerty 2265 Summit Dr. F � 1 2. 22 G S U CiF o s �- �j May 21, 2013 Parks and Rec Dept., Burlingame $50 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, Ca 94010 Margaret Glomstad, Director Bob Disco, Arborist Dear Ms. Glomstad and Mr. Disco, Just reiterating in writing the wishes of myself (2), Mr. and Mrs. Carlos, Easton Ave., Burlingame, Mrs. Nina Rodrick, Oakdale Dr., Hills., for whom letters are here enclosed, (4 total) that another look be taken at the old quercus agrifolias (oak) especially, requested by the Burlingame School District to be cut down soon. This project can go forward w/o disruption of native species that have taken our life times to grow. Alternatives to a driveway and road expansion where these trees live is available down at the end of the block where Easton, Summit and Canyon convene at a 60' diagonal intersection. Anyone looking can see this immediately as an infringement on a tiny 17' Summit Dr. in contrast to a safer, massively larger space. Burlingame School Dist. says it cannot be done. But, where there is a will, there is a way, certainly. We are just asking you all to look only at the trees themselves which I know to be healthy and stable. Further stability can always be manually done for a little extra precaution, I know. Thank you, and see you at the Beautification Meeting on the 6t' of June. Remember, the city emblem shows a spreading old oak. Our very best, Alliance for Responsible Neighborhood Planning Diane and Joe Haggerty, and the other concerned neighbors Val Shidlovsky 2270 Summit Drive Hillsborough, CA 94010 May 21, 2013 Margaret Glomstad City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Director (650) 558--7307 To whom it may concern, We, as neighbors across the street from the trees that are proposed to be cut down as part of the elementary school project, request an appeal to that decision. We want the trees to stay undisturbed. Trees are not only a critical link our planet's life chain, they're also under siege like never before. We know that civil law often allows remedies to spare wildlife resources — even individual trees in danger of being destroyed. Many times, trees are cut because they are considered "in the way" of a planned development. There are alternative solutions that can be created that bans any damage to these trees. With all things considered, we believe that in this situation alternative solutions can indeed be implemented. Trees are without a doubt an extremely important part of our environment and community. An average size tree produces enough oxygen in one year to keep a family of four breathing. Three trees planted in the right place around buildings can cut air-conditioning costs up to 50 percent. Trees are renewable, biodegradable and recyclable. Trees provide shelter and food for wildlife such as birds, squirrels, and bugs. Trees make people feel good. Workers are more productive when they see trees along their commute routes and from their office windows. Hospital patients who have a view of trees heal faster, use fewer pain medications, and leave the hospital sooner than patients with a view of a brick wall. Patients with a view of trees spend 8 percent fewer days in the hospital. Trees in the landscape relax us, lower heart rates, and reduce stress. For these and a million other reasons, we ask that you preserve the valuable oaks we so deeply value. Sincerely, Shidlovsky Family � aye f r City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURUNGAM phone: (650) 555-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 s MWOF*.� VM May 28, 2013 On May 23, 2013, Park and Recreation Director Glomstad and Park Supervisor/City Arborist Disco received a letter from Ralph Osterling. The letter indicated that Director Glomstad and Arborist Disco attended an on site meeting with Mr. Osterling to discuss his opinion on the health and structure of the two oak trees at Hoover School. Neither Director Glomstad nor Arborist Disco met with Mr Osterling at any time regarding this matter _Director Glomstad and Arborist Disco have not had any communication with Mr. Osterling or discussed the health, structure or proposed project with Mr. Osterling. Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc. 1650 Bore] Place, Suite 204 San Mateo, CA 94402-3508 May 22, 2013 Margaret Glamstad, Director Parks and Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Hoover School Oak Trees Dear Ms. Glamstad: RWH 08TE$I S fiaffg ULT]I m PIN E(66003.8733 165011OHEi;,PM 2" 8U NIIiTEO CA9+W2 In response to our site meeting and to my added investigation of the two oak trees growing between the upper playground and Summit Drive I offer the following opinion: 1. The two trees are coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). This species is native to the area and is very adaptive on a variety of growing sites in the area. 2. Past maintenance has been minimal, hence the shape of the crowns. 3. The trees are in fair to good condition as evidenced by the color and density of the crowns, and in my opinion, could remain if undisturbed. 4. Twig elongation is good. 5. With some prudent pruning and balancing, these trees will continue to remain in place and be an important part of the landscape. 6. Based on the drawings I briefly reviewed and the letter from Mr. Bob Disko, City of Burlingame, the project design requires the removal of these trees. It is my professional opinion that these trees can survive well as an important part of the landscape without project impact. Respectfully, Q�oRssro,� RAiPFI S. OSTERLING Ralph Osteriing, President, ACF, CLFA r /38 \� Registered Professional Forester #38 eOFEALIF State of California Phone: (650) 573-8733 Fax: (650) 345-7890 Email: roc@ralphosterling.com City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURUNGAME phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation burlin ame.orp}� STAFF REPORT TO: Burlinzame Beautification Commission DATE: June 6, 2013 FROM: Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist SUBJECT: Request for removal of 1 Sequoia trees at 1261 Cabrillo Ave- Burlingame BACKGROUND: The resident at 1261 Cabrillo Ave. applied for a Private Tree Removal Permit for the removal of a Giant Sequoia (Sequoia giantea) in the front of their property based on the concerns that the tree is undermining and lifting the patio, and foundation. The tree is approximately I00yrs old based on the age of the existing structure. During my inspection I denied removal of Tree # 1 in the front left corner of the property because the tree was in good health, well maintained and growing several feet from the patio and foundation. Tree 42 in the attached packet is not subject to removal at this time because it was not part of my original inspection. Tree #1 is in good condition and growing six feet from the home. According to the independent arborist report the roots from this tree are undermining the existing patio. There is cracking to the existing patio. A report from the structural engineer, states that "The footing to the original portion of the house is unreinforced" and "damage to the foundation is inevitable". In Ch. 11.06.060 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance determination for removal should be based on: (d)(1) ..."the condition of the tree with respect to ... proximity to existing or proposed structures"... (d)(7)... "The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain". Commission Consideration: 1. Financial burden to property owner for future removal costs as tree grows 2. Financial burden to property owner for future structural repairs to structure and foundation. 3. Economic enjoyment of the property by property owners. 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Several options are available for the Commission 1. Deny the appeal and deny removal based on the aesthetic value of the tree. 2. Uphold the appeal recommend removal based on the recommendation of the independent arborist, structural engineer and Chapter 11.06.060 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. Recommend replacement tree species. ATTACHMENT G°A" ATTACHMENT "A" Introduction Request for tree removal and denial package..............................................................1 Arboristsreport ..........................................................................................................2 Civilengineer report ...................................................................................................3 Steve and Melissa Macko letter of concern.................................................................4 Conclusionletter.................................................................................................................5 Beautification Commission for the city of Burlingame Regarding: Two Sequoia Gigantea trees located at 1261 Cabrillo Ave. Burlingame Commissioners, We wish to appeal the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Departments Director representative Robert Disco's decision to deny removal of two Sequoia Gigantea trees located on our property. The first of the two trees is located to the front of the property. The tree roots, radiating out from the Sequoia, are undermining and lifting the patio attached to the residential structure. Our concern is that the trees are destroying the patio which has two pillars supporting the second floor sunroom overhang. Additionally, the dining room has a very recent separation in the baseboard which is next to the raised, cracked patio referred to above. The second tree is within 30 inches of the back of the premise and is undermining the reinforced patio and is also raising the recently installed driveway adjacent to the tree. The trees have been deemed to be healthy; however the tree to the rear of the property does not appear to be as healthy as the tree to the front of the property as noted in the Mayne report. The trees will continue to grow and put the foundation of the residence at risk of significant damage, as stated in the civil engineer report in the attached package. Two independent arborists and Mr. Disco have stated that the trees were inappropriately planted in a residential location near a structure. The independent reports supporting our concern for the residence and neighboring properties are included in the following package provided for your review. Yours truly, John McManus, Judith Day City of Burlftame Parkin & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330 Fax: 650.696.7216 * Email: GBorba@Burlingame.or� March 12, 2013 John Mc Manus 126 r Cabrillo Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 R: REQUEST FOR REHOVAL OF ONE SEQUOL4 TREE @ 1261 CABRJLLO AVENUE - BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned tree in the front yard at the above address. Based on the information you have provided and a site inspection of the tree, I have made the following determination: 1) This Sequoia tree is in good health and has good structure. 2) The tree has been well maintained and shows no signs of limb failure. 3) There are no visible signs of decay at the buttress roots. 4) The cracks in the patio appear to be minimal. The patio is not uplifted or has any structural defects at this time. 5) The tree is grooving several feet from the house and there appears to be no damage to the foundation. 6) 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 by iWay 15, 2013 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. Sincer/e/l/y, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Proper, Owner 1257 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1272 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1258 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1260 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1264 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1264 Drake Ave Burling,ame, CA 94010 PA 2,ZS & RECRFA7T01VDEPAR73iHPVT 3![.1Rzlfl'7LLe7t ri.1XN, 1Llil,p� 9401 (650) 558-Ij38 The noders%med owner of the property at: ADDRESS: 1261 Cabrillo Ave_ (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1 /3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s)c SPECIES Se uala Giganiias CIRCUMFERENCE over48 inches in circumference LOCATION ON PROPERTY front yard and back yard, WORK TO BE PERFORMED removal REASON WORD IS NECESSARY The tree roots are causing lifting and cracking " patios attached to the :`; ,jx It it ¢r (Please use back ofform for additional comments.) NOTE_ A PHOTOGRAPB OF THE TREE(S) OWNER (Pr )John Mc Manus MUST BE SUBME TED ALONG WITH A S CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAM E ADDRESS 1261 Cabrillo Ave. Attach any supporting documentation you may have 650-340-0666 ffikwnple-- Report from aat Independent Arhorist)_ PIHOTVE This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed trees) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (h4unicipal Code Chapter 11.06). By sigma dfis permit, the applicant aciciiowledges receipt of a coppy of Chapter 11.06, ind agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below, and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER CITY ARBOR[ST PARKS & RECREATIPN D CTOIt CONDrTIONSe -4 - Ch+ b®X size landsegTe &,ee(s} mall be required rarad Paaffy be, plrarr� aay 'Isere on the Propeny. If condigons are not met widain the allo iaFm asspee d !n Ser:&n .1.1.86.080, paya waat of S400 for eac & the tree replaacemeaat f aaad mall be required N � r laeeraae (s)Fe eyed Casa tlae I wft Dipl adaa at ( 5� 8-7330 i4 m re aaovaal(s) compkied DATE PELT EFFEC - -- PE1,14/NIT RY PIRS Dais mroa la she be done by qualified &ee profession&& anal a copy of this pest wzus ` be a fable at the jo s e at all Hisses when wor& is bdng perforaaaed PIRG T -CT7EI G) , J E I E MA-0 AL1, LIFERUUT A,PP L� C A T R 0 N n PA17M & IfCREPAT7®N- DEPARMEIVT 850 BUIURV6_41ME A VENUE BV1?LflVGAPv , CA 94010 (650) 558 7330 The onderskned owner of the property at: ADDRESS. 1261 Cabrillo Ave. (print or type) hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the crown or roots of the following protected tree(s): SPECIES Sequoia Gigantias CIRCUMFERENCE over 48 inches in circumference LOCATION ON PROPERTY front yard and back yard WORK TO BE PERFORMED removal REASON WORK IS NECESSARY The tree roots are causing lifting and cracking t& patios attached to the (Please use back offarm for additional comments.) NOTE: A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE TREE(S) MUST BE SUBMITTED ALONG WITH A 75.00 CHECK TO: CITY OF BURLINGAME Attach any supporting documentation you may have (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist). OWWNER (Print) John Mc Manus ADDRESS 1261 Cabrillo Ave. PHONE 660-340-0565 __— This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER CITY ARBORIST PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTOR CONDMONS: 24 - i neh box size landscape tree(s) will 6e required and may be plaided anywhere on the property. If condidoras are not wet within the allotted time as specified in Section II.06.080, pay`aaeat of $400 for each tree into the tree replacement farad will be required. NO replacenient(s) required Contact the Parlis Division at (650) 558-7330 when Femovaal(s) coaaapleted DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES Tie is wank should be dome by qu alifaed tree professionals and a copy of this perneit He use be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. 11.06.010 Chapter 11.06 URBAN REFORESTATION AND TREE PROTECTION Sections: 11.06.010 Purpose and intent. 11.06.020 Definitions. 11.06.030 Nomination and listing of protected trees. 11.06.040 Emergencies. 11.06.050 Prohibitions and protections. 11.06.060 Notices and permits required for removal or work significantly affecting protected trees. 11.06.070 Decision by director. 11.06.080 Appeal. 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation. 11.06.100 Penalty. 11.06.010 Purpose and intent. The city of Burlingame is endowed and forested with a variety of healthy and valuable trees which must be pro- tected and preserved. The preservation of these trees is essential to the health, welfare and quality of life of the citizens of the city because these trees preserve the scenic beauty of the city, maintain ecological balance, prevent 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 ofprivate property. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § I (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 orwhich involves excavation, landscap- ing, or construction in the vicinity of a protected tree. (d) "Director" means the director of parks and recrea- tion of the city of Burlingame. (e) "Landscape tree" means a generally recognized ornamental tree and shall exclude fruit, citrus, or nut - bearing trees. (f) "Protected tree" means: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of impor- tance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has deter- mined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. �. (g) "Pruning" means the removal of more than one third of the crown or existing foliage of the tree or more Than one third of the root system. P_ runing done without a ..Permit or which does not conform to the provisions of a permit shall be deemed.a removal. (h) "Removal" means cutting to the ground, extrac- tion, killing by spraying, girdling, or any other means. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 1, (1993); Ord. I598 § I (part), (1998)) (Burlingame Supp,-No. 2, 9.06) 236 11.06.030 Nomination and listing of protected trees. Nomination for protected tree status under Section 11-06.020(f)(2) may be made by any citizen. The commis- sion shall review such nominations and present its recom- mendations to the city council for designation. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the department and shall be available for distribution to interested citizens. The city council may remove a designated tree from the list upon its own motion or upon request. Requests for such action may originate in the same manner as nomina- tions for protected tree status. (Ord. 1057 § 1 (part), (1975); Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) 11.06.040 Emergencies. In the event that an emergency condition arises whereby immediate action is necessary because of disease, or danger to life or property, a protected tree may be re- moved or altered by order of the director or, if the director is unavailable, a responsible member of the police, fire, parks and recreation, or public works department. In such event, a report shall be made to the commission describing the conditions and necessity of such an order. (Ord. 1057 § r 11.06.080 I-_, 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 (10)-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 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.090 Tree requirements and reforestation. (a) Whenever the development or redevelopment of a single family home, duplex, apartment house or condonun- ium results in any increase in lot coverage or habitable space (as defined by Chapter 25 of this code), the property shall be required to meet the following requirements: (1) One landscape tree for every One thousand (1,000) square feet of lot coverage or habitable space for single family homes or duplexes; (2) One landscape tree for every two thousand (2,000) square feet of lot coverage for apartment houses or con- dominiums. Lot coverage and habitable space shall include both existing and new construction. The director shall deter- mine the number of existing trees which are of an accept- able size, species and location to be counted toward this requirement. Any additional trees which are required shall meet the standards for replacement trees set forth in sub- section (b) below. (b) Permits for removal of protected tree(s) shall in- clude replanting conditions with the following guidelines: (1) Replacement shall be three (3) fifteen (15)-gallon size, one twenty-four (24)-inch box size, or one thirty-six (36)-inch box size landscape tree(s) for each tree removed as determined below. (2) Any tree removed without a valid permit shall be replaced by two (2) 24-inch box size, or two (2) 36-inch 238 box size landscape trees for each tree so removed as de- termined below. (3) Replacement of a tree be waived by the director if a sufficient number of trees exists on the property to meet all other requirements of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ordinance. (4) Size and number of the replacement tree(s) shall be determined by the director and shall be based on the species, location and value of the tree(s) removed. (S) If replacement trees, as designated in subsection (b)(1) or (2) above, as applicable, cannot be planted on the property, payment of equal value shall be made to the city. Such payments shall be deposited in the tree planting fund to be drawn upon for public tree planting. (Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1492 § 3, (1993); Ord. 1598 § I (part), (1998)) 11.06.100 Penalty. In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing or pruning a tree in violation of this ordi- nance is liable to treble damages as set forth in Section 733 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California. Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tree as determined by the International Society of Arbori- culture Standards. (Ord. 1470 § 1, (1992); Ord. 1598 § 1 (part), (1998)) PA Mayne Tree Expert Compa hy, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 376793 CERTIFIED FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS .AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRACATO ROAD. STE. A PRFSIDENT SAN CARL.OS. CA 94070-6311 JEROMEY INGALLS TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 CONS ULTA NTIESTIM kTOR FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 April 29, 2013 EMAIL: infoClmaynelree.com Ms. Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Day, At your request, on April 22, 2013, 1 visited the above site. The purpose of my visit was to inspect and comment on three trees located on the property. Limitations of this report This report is based on a visual inspection of the trees and the previously -dug trenches near the trees' bases. I accept no responsibility for any unseen or unknown defects associated with the trees on the property. Method The diameter of each tree was found by measuring fifty-four inches off of the natural grade as mandated by the City of Burlingame Heritage Tree Ordinance. The height and canopy spread of each tree was estimated to show the approximate dimensions of each tree.. A condition rating was given to each tree. This rating is based on form and vitality and can be further defined by the fowling table: 0 — 29 Very Poor 30 — 49 Poor 50 — 69 Fair 70 — 89 Good 90 — 100 Excellent Lastly, a comments section is provided to give more individualized detail for each tree. a7:9Lw,v 0 I' Lf�mnl ,,,emu Ormm i 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame Tree Species DMi Condition Height Sp aad Cornnierrts # (Gonulmon) (Mches) (Percant) (feet;) (faet) April 29, 2013 1 Giant 69.7 85 90 38 30% of the root zone is covered Sequoia by the home; roots causing large cracks in the front patio. The trunk is 6 feet away from the foundation of the home; minor tip dieback in the upper canopy. 2 Giant 69.4 85 95 40 The trunk is 2Y2 feet away from Sequoia the home; there is a small cavity at the base with termite damage; 75% of root zone is covered by the home and driveway; minor tip dieback in the upper canopy. 3 Black 28.9 55 70 35 Godominant attachment at 7 feet Locust off of the natural grade with included bark between the two stems; large cavity in the main attachment; small cavity at the base; history of mushrooms around the base; 2 feet away from the neighbor's garage foundation; 75% of root zone is covered by pavement. Observation Before my inspection, a trench was dug near the base of each of the Giant Sequoia trees between the home and the trunk. These trenches were dug to determine if any roots were growing under the house from the trunk of the tree, and may possibly be the reason for the cracking and lifting of the house, its foundation, and damage to the outside patios. Tree #1 is located on the left side of the home near the front left corner (Picture 41). The trench dug between the home and the trunk of the tree was 6 feet long, 2 feet wide, and approximately 2Y2 feet deep (Pictures #2, #3, and #4). This trench does not extend the entire length of the side of the home nor the entire root zone on the house side of the tree. This trench provides a small cross section of the number of roots that exist, so not all of the roots presently growing under the home have been visually accounted for. Within the excavated area, a total of approximately seven roots have been identified. Above the roots that go under the home, several cracks have appeared in the patio located across from the trunk of the tree (Pictures #5411). dear the same area, by the tree, there is a fence whose purpose is to limit access to the rear of the home. The gate of this fence, where attached to the home, has separated from its frame due to uplifting in the area caused by the roots (Picture 12). 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame April 29, 2013 `ties #2 is located at the left rear corner of the home within 3 feet of the foundation (Picture #13). A small trench was dug prior to my inspection. This trench is about 4 feet wide, 7 feet long, and about 2Y half feet deep (Picture #14). The excavated area does not extend the entire length of the home, which is about 30 feet, or the entire root zone of the tree near the home. This trench provides a small cross section of the amount of roots that exist in this area, so not all of the roots that are presently growing under the home have been visually accounted for. Within the excavated area, a total of 6 roots have been identified as growing under the home (Pictures #15, #16, and #17). At the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk, I identified a small cavity (Picture #18). There is evidence of active termites in the interior of the cavity and an abundance of decayed wood (Pictures #19 and #20). The trunk of this tree is about 2'/ feet from the side of the horde (Pictures #21423). Throughout the rear patio and the small walkway between the home and the trunk of the tree, several cracks have developed (Pictures #24429). Approximately 75 percent of the root zone of this tree is covered by a combination of driveway and house. The upper canopy has good form but there are sporadic areas of tip dieback present. Tree #3 is located in the rear of the property between the garage and a shed. This tree has a codominant attachment with included bark at 7 feet off of the natural grade (Picture #30). In this main attachment is a medium-sized cavity with decay present (Pictures #31 and #32). There is a small cavity present at the base of the tree (Picture #33) and, according to the homeowner, mushrooms have appeared around the base of this tree at various times throughout the year (Pictures #34436). Approximately 75 percent of this tree's root zone is covered by pavement. The root crown of this tree is covered and its base is about 2°/2 feet away from the neighbor's garage. Discussion Many experts agree, roots can grow well beyond the canopy spread of most trees, depending on soil type, oxygen, and water availability. Often roots will grow under pavement and under homes in search for a suitable mixture of water and oxygen. "The space between pavement and its compacted subgrade would not seem like a good place for a root, but roots grow there anyway. As the subgrade soil dries, it shrinks slightly, leaving a small air space between the underside of the paving and the soil. On hot days, water condenses on the underside of the pavement, and the paving allows little of this water to evaporate. Roots can take advantage of this situation of air and water, and grow into this space. Once roots find a good growing environment beyond the paving, they will grow larger, eventually lifting the pavement above." (Urban 88) "To survive, tree roots need oxygen and water, both found in the upper layer of the soil. Tree roots often grow directly under pavement in a thin layer of soil so as to get the best balance of water and air. Tree roots can grow much faster than branches, and have been measured at up to 10 feet or more per year. The need for oxygen and the rapid growth of roots mean that a tree's root system is often horizontal in structure and will cover far more territory than its crown." (Urban 7) "Tree roots can exert great force on objects. If a root grows under or beside an object and later finds an area of good growing conditions, the expansion of that root can move or break objects of great weight or strength. These root qualities cause damage to paving, curbs, and walls if not understood." (Urban 8) 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame April 29, 2013 "Roots of trees grown in the open often extend two to three times the radius of the crown..." (Harris 49) Tree #1 is located at the front left corner of the home. The existing home covers roughly Y4 of the trees root zone (Picture #37). 1 estimated the canopy spread of this tree to be approximately 38 feet wide. From the tree's trunk to the edge of the dripline would be about 19 feet. The distance from the trunk to the home is 6 feet. That means the roots of this tree are at least 13 feet under the home and most likely extend further. The trench dug between the base of the tree and home is 6 feet long. I found 7 roots in this trench that may be growing under the home. Using the information gathered from the sample excavation, considering that tree roots may extend well beyond the edge of the canopy and the canopy of this tree extends at least 19 feet over the roof and along the side of the home; I believe there may be as many as 21 roots from this large tree growing under the home and creating damage to the foundation. Tree #2 is located along the rear center of the home about 2Y2 feet from the edge of the outside wall. The existing home covers roughly'/2 the root zone of this tree. I estimated the canopy spread of this tree at about 40 feet. The distance from the trunk to the home is about 21/2 feet. That means that the roots for this tree extend at least 20 feet under the home and most likely further. The trench dug near the right side of the tree was 7 feet long and I noted about 6 different roots within the excavated area growing toward the home. The width of the rear portion of the home is about 45 feet long with the canopy extending almost the entire span (Picture #38). Using the information gathered from the sample excavation hole, I believe that as many as 49 roots may be growing under the rear of the home from the trunk of this tree that may cause damage to the foundation of this home. Tree #3 is located along the rear of the property between the garage and the rear shed. This tree has a codominant attachment at 7 feet with included bark between the main stems as well as a medium-sized cavity in the same location. Experts agree that this type of attachment is inherently weak and has a significantly higher potential for a failure to occur. "Included bark often occurs in sharp -angled branch attachments and between double leaders (codominant stems). The trunk is not able to grow around the branch or other stem. Limbs or stems with included bark can grow to large size before they begin to spread and increase the stress on the weak attachment. It is usually only a matter of time before failure occurs." (Harris 390) "Some species of trees normally have many codominant stems with included bark. They are trees that often split in storms..." (Shigo 453) The homeowner has several pictures showing unidentified mushrooms growing around the base of this tree. These mushrooms could signify a fungal attack at the tree's base. Root rot can cause structural instability, stress throughout the canopy, and potentially cause the tree to die or a failure to occur. 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 5 April 29, 2013 Conclusion Trees #1 and #2 are large beautiful trees that were planted in poor locations. Due to these trees large size and close proximity to the home, there are a significant number of roots under the home's foundation. There is strong evidence these roots have caused cracks in the patios and the foundation of the home. Removal of the roots is not an option as there is a high potential for the trees to fail and cause significant damage to the home and surrounding environment. I strongly recommend removal of both trees to mitigate the current damage to the home and eliminate the potential for significant damage to the home and the home's foundation. Tree #3 is located along the rear portion of this property. The tree's trunk is very near the property line and the neighbor's garage. This tree has very poor form with large weakly attached codominant stems that are at an increased risk of failing. The root crown of this tree has a history of mushrooms appearing near it, which may be a sign of a more serious fungal attack. I believe this tree is a significant hazard and I strongly recommend removal of this tree to eliminate the chance of a failure occurring and severe damage to people and the surrounding structures as a result of that failure. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricuitural principles and practices. If P may be of further assistance, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, rO- GIETY , JeromeyA.Ingalls PJa.91iE7076A Certified Arborist WE #7076A JAI : pmd '�f �D AVr%-' 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame WORKS CITED April 29, 2013 Harris, Richard Wilson. "Arboriculture: Integrated management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines." 2nd. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992. Shigo, Alex L. "A New Tree Biology, Facts, Photos, And Philosophies on Trees and Their Problems and Proper Care." Shigo & Trees Associates, 1986. Urban, James. "Up by Roots: Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment." Champaign, Illinois: International Society of Arboriculture, 2008. Y� �� y � � •' � �� ;fin _ k :. _ Pig "LRre 'I r April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 8 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 9 April 29, 2013 ............ a - - c, _ I sad i '; . 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 10 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 11 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 12 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 13 April 29, 2013 <.. . 1. .. _. �( �"`'• 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 14 U .......... April 29,2013 (7� 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame �x �r A4 i� 1 f [ 1 Y T April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 16 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 17 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 18 April 29, 2013 \ ' 1117, � � • e+,^ S�� . - ��������\�_- �� rw 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 20 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 21 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 22 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 23 April 29, 2013 0 April 29, 2413 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 24 1261 CabrilloAVe., Burlingame 25 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 26 April 29, 2013 ,a pIMMIF(Ii) `° z. 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 27 April 29, 2013 moot, y ry i w�. a t 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 29 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 30 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 31 April 29, 2013 I �i d mE 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 32 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 33 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 34 April 29, 2613 I yi F }i S �f OV l �, ¢�. i 9F�� �� � ����, sLyy� • . k S t�� � ���yfp � ��r(0""'1, f 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 35 April 29, 2013 I " s I f .. i I ON 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 36 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 37 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 38 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 39 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 40 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 41 April 29, 2013 z- .. y'�r 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 42 April 29, 2013 4 a r ._�..._.c .._�..�...�_...,.! .._ _ ... -. .. �. � .. .: .. ... .. Ali.. � ..•. Picture #37 lit ✓ i .�4� /11T 1IMIOUD An & WOCIATU STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1989 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 No_C35053 RE: Destructive tree roots F GAL May 6, 2013 Project No. 6333 Dear Judy: The following report summarizes our evaluation of the effects of the two giant redwood trees on the existing building foundation in close vicinity of your home. Basis of Investigation This investigation is intended to provide a quick overview of the continued adverse impact of the two giant redwood tree roots on the existing foundation at the residence at above address. Foundation and Related Soils Issues The building is a two story wood framed structure with a partial basement supported on a spread footing. There has been an addition to the rear of the house. The footing on the original portion of the house is unreinforced. There are two patio slabs adjacent to the two trees and both slabs have significant cracks that are a sign of distress from the tree roots. The two open test pits adjacent to the patio slabs, have visible tree roots running under the patio slab (see attached photos) that have caused the distress. Conclusion Invasive tree roots can cause serious damage to the foundations of homes. As the roots increase in diameter, they wedge themselves between the foundation and the surrounding soil, creating more pressure with each passing year. The roots of these trees are shallow and horizontal and the tree canopies reach into the middle of the house. The pressure they can exert, especially in conjunction with removing moisture from the soil, could cause the foundation to subside and since the footings are unreinforced, damage to the foundation is inevitable. One other possibility is that the roots can get into small cracks in the foundation and break the foundation. Based on the age of the house (100 plus) this type of damage is another concern. 851 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE: 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348,3467 F 650.348.7119 enrww.mmaengineers.com M c Ce,,5i rc '�r h y TREE SPECEALETIES, NOC9 CONT. LIC. # 762280 Quercus agrifolia November 16, 2012 Judith Day 1261 Cabrillo Burlingame, CA To Whom It May Concern RE: Two Sequoia gieanteum_(giant sequoia) On November 7, 2012 1 visited the property of Ms. Judith Day at 1261 Cabrillo Ave, Burlingame. She expressed to me her concern about two Se uoia giganteum (giant sequoia) growing on her property. f� She explained that she had a back patio installed in 1992 and a new driveway installed 4 — 5 years ago. She than showed me cracks in the patio and driveway caused by the roots of the redwood trees. (See photos attached). The trees of concern are the front yard Se uoia giganteum which has a diameter of 69"measured f 4.5 ft from the ground up and the back yard Sequoia giganteum with a diameter of 68 8/10" measured 4.5 ft from the ground up. Both of these trees are in good health but do to their location to the house and other hardscapes I believe these trees have Out grown their location and are becoming a future hazard and property liability. Do to these reasons the redwood trees should be considered for removal. Sincerely, John H. McCarthy Certified Arborist W E-0956A REMIT TO ACCOUNTING; P.O. BOX 1803 e Lower Lake, CA 95457 ° (707) 995-2275 • FAX (707) 995-3566 PHYSICAL ADDRESS: 1831 F. East Bayshore Road ^ Redwood City, CA94063 0 (650) 367-7552 a FAX (650) 367-1353 Ma.4 l \* L ..�� ' � � t•., i , _ � 4S .� r { rrrY , i • t`Jf'1�27 - . f'Sh' 7r. e4� 'rf�.4"r F}��,1• it eL� D '!� ;oe'All - cY �.- ;�a Ln- r 1!'Y;F7 Ik - t - tirb.t. k�F ,4= •.. ^a S."F_.,!'F i; "r.:\ �" it v -AM _SAI z, I t ice. - i� �C�C? hJ i j:� ' Y !� r r • �Jl to ;� -� �,.'s�. a '�,71t � �.- V � _r � '�,•. � h .,�} - Alm As .`V�Y.%h,• � - 1 nr , ^�� �� �� `�!a �- �4 -. i r- t�' :/� 7 _ -ter,• �' tr�� � , �•f? '..-7- i� .-� L'� t �!`.t r' '� '`^�Sl:� � - .. _ ��. _f � ..i' I J Tf _i' 2• / � ,i 1 l �i '1. RS 4�_ gl �.�'i.. - �9- �^ /' �'1�,•-"' �tJ= r • �,t�' s.��Y r' n_ _ t77 - ' i.. y� * � 'v- .^-��, . 'j46 ai~ p1V 0 �. fJ�■II- �i '�r'F7J� %1�,1(- � i.� � � r �. � � � �' l �-?41.!•P f 41�, � ' r. f - 4 i ,.� , ,�c �� y+ `h J i 3 a+ICY' il`s14� �'7• y!yy the a Ki} r S+ .y - /r.�i�- 1`� � i� 4,��'�l/ - r� .,r -' �,i 1# t ��i ' d�� SF 1?'�,' rtt' ^,a ePFr�.,� �- `��'1 •h �r.. }_ I� kr- ri � Y •. tiil frs � P } pr ) ..�� r1. 41 n �y�'d� ' .� y.. { J.; ++'�- �✓ J i.� f �}Y r: Fti`f i 1'tk F f -^ '�5 � .•;sf ` *w 1po .c- ��"rfiY f 'r:.. - � ,'.. `. Fir _ :r '• , �: � 'tom., .._ _ ,�{ � _ �w 1. , ��• •S�_ .- -_ � _ • _ _ ._. -.. >�. �- �- "� � - ram- i� -1 �'� \ -!i`r •'u�e••y. cfi3e'S� � �,g{d r I •�' it ��.�•�r;� �• • �' t ,� � - ' L�J -i 'j 1.1 MEN MR it K 1IAMOUDIAn & AffOCIATU STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1989 Recommendations Trees and houses were never really meant to be in close proximity to one another for a multitude of reasons. Trees can break in a windstorm and fall on a house, and the leaves fall into the gutters and clog them. But far and away the greatest risk to a house is the damage that tree roots can inflict. It is my recommendation these trees to be removed to eliminate risks associated with them being so close to the structure. We trust that the above preliminary review provides the information you require. If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. Mike Mahmoudian, P.E. 851 SURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www.mmaenginears.com U) 0 CD Nr G) u (D E Jn MILE Ai ik 4L -ANN "91 i t` e4 - �.. r y31 Y 1 t 1 X. q To Whom It May Concern: As adjacent neighbors to 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, we share a concern regarding the size and proximity of the two Sequoias to our home. Our greatest concern of course being any degradation to our foundation caused by the root system. We love trees, however should we risk the integrity of our hundred year -old homes for a poor choice made decades ago? Should we continuously bear responsibility for repairs demanded by expanding roots that lift patios and damage house foundations in their paths? Sequoias are indisputably gorgeous trees to be treasured and admired ... in a forest. They are not suburban backyard trees. Period. Many puzzling plantings were made long ago than cannot be undone overnight and without altering some of Burlingame's appeal. However, as homeowners, we first and foremost purchased our property for our home, not for the trees planted on the property. Having discussed this at length with.Jack and Judy, I know they are sensitive to the need for and beauty of trees in yards, along streets and in parks. However, more sensible plantings need to be considered. Uprooted Eucalyptus trees along El Camino Real and fallen branches in yards and along Easton are dangerous and not uncommon. Although a different species, the Sequoia presents its own set of issues when planted 10 feet from a home. We support our neighbors' appeal to the denial for tree removal. The City of Burlingame needs to appreciate the risks involved with these two Sequoias. � �A Steve & Melissa Macko 1 Z5-7 Goby-11 I o �- r-- 5 Conclusion We have attempted to provide the commission with documentation supporting the need to remove the trees threatening our residence, driveway and the foundation and driveway of our next door neighbors. Sadly the trees were planted many years ago in the wrong location. The grim reality is that the trees will have to be removed at some point not unlike the eucalyptus in front the Easton Library (Tom the tree). Allowing the trees to remain will create a greater hazard to the properties and make removal more difficult and dangerous. While the trees are slow growing we regularly experience growth spurts where the bark sheds indicating the growth of the tree is in progress. Hopefully the commission will recognize the need to remove the trees and will provide a recommendation for suitable replacement trees which we are more than willing to plant on the property. Thank you for your reviewing our request. John McManus, Judith Day C City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330 Fax: 650..696.7216 * Email: GBorbana Btlrlinnamp nrn May 28, 2013 John Mc Manus Judith Day 1261 Cabrillo Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: PRIVATE TREE REMOVAL REQUEST DENIED @1261 CABRILLO AVENUE -- BURLINGAME Dear Mr. Mc Manus and Ms. Day, Thank you for the packets and letter dated May 15, 2013 regarding the denial of the removal of the two private Sequoia trees at 1261 Cabrillo Road. My inspection was solely based on structure and health. Based on the information you have submitted from Mayne Tree Company and structural engineer Mike Mahoudian and Assoc., I will approve removal of tree #2 in the rear of your property but deny the removal of tree #1 in the front left corner of your home. Packets regarding your tree will be distributed to the Beautification Commissioners and you have been placed on the June 6, 2013 Beautification Commission agenda. The meeting will be held at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue in the Social Hall at 6:30pm. You will have an opportunity to address the Commission regarding these trees at that time. If you have any questions please contact Gina Borba at 650-558-7330 or email borba@burlingame.ora. Sincerely, Bob Disco " City of Burlingame Arborist/Parks Supervisor