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