Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2017.01.05CITY O r m RPORATED Thursday, January 5, 2017 1. ROLL CALL 2. MINUTES a. Attachments: City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final Beautification Commission 6:30 PM Meeting Minutes December 1, 2016 3.CORRESPONDENCE 4. FROM THE FLOOR BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Burlingame Recreation Center 850 Burlingame Avenue 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. 5. OLD BUSINESS a. 2017 Business Landscape Award b. Residential Sustainable Landscape Award 6. NEW BUSINESS a. Appeal Private Tree Removal at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Attachments: Staff Report and Appeal Packet b. El Camino Real Task Force Meeting Update Commissioner Kirchner 7. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF REPORTS 8. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1212912016 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final January 5, 2017 Next Regular Meeting: February 2, 2017 Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1212912016 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION December 1, 2016 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:30 pm by Commissioner Hinckle. 120] 01[WI 0 0 Present: Commissioner Kirchner, Hinckle, Deason and Kearney Absent: Commissioner Hunt Staff: Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Disco and Recording Secretary Borba MINUTES Commissioner Kearny made a motion to approve the November 3, 2016 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Deason and unanimously approved. CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT None OLD BUSINESS 1. 2017 Business Landscape Award Timeline Commissioner Kirchner inquired if the application for the 2017 Business Landscape Award was in the Parks and Recreation Winter brochure. Secretary Borba responded it will be in the Spring/Summer Parks and Recreation Brochure. Commissioner Kirchner discussed the timeline with the rest of the Commissioners. 2. Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Commissioner Kirchner stated the Residential Sustainable Landscape Award will match the same timeline as the Business Landscape Award and have the winner presented in September by the City Council. The Commissioners discussed the possibility of a different time to present the award but decided to keep it in September. Commissioner Kirchner stated this award is to recognize exceptional design, sustainable landscape solutions and strategies for reducing potable water use. Commissioner Kearny suggested Sigalle Michael, Sustainability Coordinator for the City speak to the Commissioners about sustainability. The Commissioners discussed a plaque that could be posted in front of the winner's home or a tree planted at Arbor Day as some ideas for the winner. The nominations will come from the Commissioners and not be open to the public. Secretary Borba will create a timeline draft. NEW BUSINESS 1. Beautification Commissioner Verne Deason Oath of Public Office Commissioner Deason was sworn in by Commissioner Hinckle. 2. El Camino Real Task Force Update Commissioner Kirchner Commissioner Kirchner explained the purpose of the El Camino Real Task Force. Arborist Disco added that the ECR Task Force is a joint effort with Caltrans to look at two blocks of El Camino Real to see if a solution could be agreed upon to ECR challenges which includes retaining the trees and addressing the safety issues. Commissioner Kirchner will be attending a meeting for the ECR Task Force on December 7, 2106 and will report back to the Commission. REPORTS 1. Park Superintendent/City Arborist a. Arbor Day is Tuesday, March 7t' at 10:30am in Washington Park. b. Tree lighting is Friday, December 2nd at 5pm. c. The new tree contractor, Bay Area Tree Specialist started work. d. There is a possibility the January 5' BBC meeting maybe cancelled barring no appeals. 2. Commissioner Hinckle None 3. Commissioner Deason None 4. Commissioner Hunt None 5. Commissioner Kearney Commissioner Kearney commented on the beautiful trees on El Camino Real. 6. Commissioner Kirchner a. In Hillsborough at Black Mountain Road and Skyline PG&E removed a large amount of trees. b. At Peninsula Hospital five Redwood trees were removed for the helipad. The next Beautification Commission meeting is January 5, 2017. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:08 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Recording Secretary a STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: January 5, 2017 From: Margaret Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Director Bob Disco, Parks Superintendent/City Arborist Subject: Appeal to the Removal of one Giant Sequoia at 1261 Cabrillo Ave. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission deny the appeal for the removal of one Giant Sequoia at 1261 Cabrillo based on the damage the tree roots are causing to the patio and foundation and that the removal meets the requirements of Chapter 11.06.050 of the Municipal Code. BACKGROUND This is the second time this tree has come before the Commission for removal. On March 12, 2013, a protected tree removal permit request was submitted by the homeowner at 1261 Cabrillo to remove the Giant Sequoia tree. Information provided by the homeowner included a report by the Mayne Tree Expert that concluded that the tree was beautiful but there were a significant number of roots under the foundation. Mayne Tree Expert recommended that the tree be removed to mitigate any current damage, and, to eliminate the potential for significant damage to the foundation. The report also stated that the removal of the roots were not an option since there would be a high potential for failure (Exhibit A). Also submitted was a structural engineers report from Mahmoudian and Associates which concluded that the roots from this tree are shallow and damage to the foundation is "inevitable". The structural engineers report also stated that the structures footings "are unreinforced" (Exhibit B). At that time, the City denied the request based on the information provided which indicated the tree was in good health, there was minimal damage to the patio, and there was no damage to the foundation (Exhibit C). The homeowner appealed the denial to the Beautification Commission. On June 6, 2013, the Commission discussed the matter and expressed concern about losing big trees when they had not yet damaged a foundation. With a vote of 2-1, the Commission denied the appeal based on the aesthetic value of the tree and that the tree was healthy (Exhibit D). On November 23, 2016, the homeowner submitted another protected tree removal permit request which stated that the roots were now lifting the patio and cracking the foundation of the house. 1 Tree Removal at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue January 5, 2017 During the inspection the City Arborist noticed visible cracks in the foundation walls in the basement closest to the tree. There were also older cracks in the foundation wall and areas that appear to have been damaged by water penetration. On December 1, 2016, based on the City Arborists inspection, the permit was approved due to the cracks in the foundation and the provisions in Chapter 11.06 of the Municipal Code (Exhibit E). The City Arborist requested an updated structural engineer's report. The report stated that the cracks in the foundation have been caused by the roots of the tree (Exhibit F). The City Arborist's inspection also noted that the Giant Sequoia is approximately 100 feet tall, 40 feet wide and with at diameter of over 70 inches. The tree appears in good condition and has fair to good vigor and structure. The City Arborist estimated that the tree was, in all probability, planted when the home was built roughly 100 years ago. An updated independent arborist's report was requested. The respondent Judith Day and the appellant Anahita Safavi have submitted additional information regarding the appeal (Exhibit G and H). In order to be fair and equitable to all City homeowners, every removal request is evaluated based on its individual circumstances and is reviewed independent of past tree removals and the impact upon the City's urban forest. Based on the City Arborists inspection, the permit was approved due to the cracks in the foundation and the provisions in Chapter 11.06 of the Municipal Code The Commission's discussion should include: 1. Whether the cracks, the cost to repair the foundation to prevent further damage, and the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain are sufficient reasons to uphold the appeal. Or 2. Whether to deny the appeal based on the proximity of the tree to the existing structure, the damage to the foundation, and the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain as stated in Chapter 11.06.050 of the Municipal Code. EXHIBITS A. 2013 Mayne Tree Expert Report B. 2013 Mahmoudian Structural Engineers report C. March 12, 2013 Letter of Denial D. Minutes from June 6, 2013 Beautification Commission meeting E. December 1, 2016 Letter of Approval F. 2016 updated Structural Engineers Report G. Respondent Judith Day submitted information packet H. Appellant Anahita Safavi submitted information packet I. Jennifer Pfaff, letter of property history 2 EXHIBIT A 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 JERONICY INGALLS TELEPHONE: 0501593-4400 CONSULTANTIESTI)IATOR FACSIMILE: (6501593-4443 April 29, 2013 EN4 AIL: inCoC may1,n«e.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. 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 2 April29,2013 1 Tree Survey Tree Species DBI-9 Condition Haight Spread Comments # (Common) (inches) (percent) (feet) (feet) 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 2'/2 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 Godorninant 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. Observations 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 #1). The trench dug between the home and the trunk of the tree was 6 feet long, 2 feet wide, and approximately 2'/2 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 95411). Near 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 3 April29,2013 Tree s#2 is located at the left rear corner of the home within 3 feet of the foundation (Picture 913). A small trench was dug prior to my inspection. This trench is about 4 feet wide, 7 feet long, and about 2'/ 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 920). The trunk of this tree is about 2'/ feet from the side of the home (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 comer of the home. The existing home covers roughly '/4 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 2'/2 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 2'/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 I rees #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 darnage to people and the surrounding structures as a result of that failure. I believe this report is accurate and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. If C may be of further assistance, please contact me at my office. Sincerely, J� JeromeyA.ingalis f1 tVo.IN�7o7sA Certified Arborist WE 47076A !=- JAI:pmd 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. EXHIBIT B 111T 1`1A1- OUDIAn IS OOCIATU STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1989 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Destructive tree roots May 6, 2013 Project No. 6333 Dear Judy: k76 No. C35053 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 Investimataon 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 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 ww1rd.MmnPnainPPvc_nnm IIINC Mll/ OUDIAR S AIIOCIATU 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 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www_mmaona1nAPrw_enm City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, California 94010-2899 .Parks Division Telephone 650.558.7330 Fax: 660.696.7216 * Email: GBorba(a-Burlinnamp nrn March 12, 2013 John Mc Manus 126 P Cabrillo Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 EXHIBIT C BE. RE®UES FOR REMOVI L OF ONE SE®UOL4 TRUE@ 1261 CABRff-L AVENUE- BURLIIVGAIdTB 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 growing 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 ofthis decision. The decision may be appealed in writing to the Burlingame Beautification Commission, 850 BurlingameAvenue, Burlingame by If&ty -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. Sincerely Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist ME, CC: Property 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 Properly Owner 1264 Drake Ave Burlingame,'CA 94010, EXHIBIT D 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°i 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 4519075 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. 1" 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. 2nd 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`d 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 arorist 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 acoms for acom-dependent birds. Arborist Disco stated that the Commission can detemrine the number of trees to be replanted and that 48" box size trees will already be producing acoms. 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). E1 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. 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 14'h. 2. Parking lot paving project at Cuemavaca 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 EXHIBIT E City ®f Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 ^ fax: (650) 696-7216 gborba@,burlingaine orb December 1, 2016 Judith Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Judith, The Sequoia tree at 1261 Cabrillo was denied for removal in March of 2013 because there were no structural defects in the concrete patio and the foundation of the house was not damaged. During a recent inspection of the patio and foundation I did notice significant uplifting and cracks in both of these areas. My immediate concern is with the 2 foot by 4 foot foundation; the visible cracks have compromised the foundation and have allowed water to seep through. The new cracks and movement of the foundation coincides with the Mayne Tree Expert report dated April 29, 2013. In this report, the Arborist estimates as many as 21 roots may eventually cause damage to the foundation. After three years since the report, the foundation does show damage from the roots of this tree. The concrete patio now has large cracks and has lifted in the center due to roots. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the Sequoia tree. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter11.06. Replacement with one24-inch box standard single stem size landscape tree (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self-addressed envelope by December 14,2016. Adjacent property owner(s) at the addresss) 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 December 14, 2016 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued on December 14, 2016 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, Bob Disco Park Superintendent/City Arborist Enclosure CC: Property Owner 1249 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1272 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1256 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1285 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1257 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1260 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1258 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1264 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1264 Ca brillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1719 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1805 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 EXHIBIT F rUT 11M OUDIM S OIOCIATO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1 9 8 9 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Destructive tree roots December 19, 2016 Project No. 6333 Dear Judy: This is a follow up letter to the report that was prepared by our Office in 2013. My recommendation in the 2013 report was to remove the trees to avoid damage to the foundation. At this point there are cracks in the foundation that have been caused by the roots of the said tress, and the recommendation remains the same as noted below. i Recommendations from 2013 report 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 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www.mmaengineers.com M1- OUDIAn IS WOCIATO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1989 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Destructive tree roots 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 Invesfilaataon This investigation is intended to provide a quick overview of the continued adverse impact of die 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 un einforced. 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 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 /IK /1010UDIAn IS OOCIATU 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 bust 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 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 WWW.MrBDannalnWP PC rnm 1 ' CO N x. r. ` � 4 -If _ I 71,zb�e off Contents Introduction Approval letter for removal, neighbor appeal letter....................................................1 2013 pictures of roots, patio damage, patio foundation...............................................2 Civilengineer report ...................................................................................................3 Steve and Melissa Macko letter of concern.................................................................4 Conclusion letter ....................................................... _ f 1` N j df Pic `ture #37� \' City ®f Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 @URLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 e fax: (650) 696-7216 . '•�nT4e l0 iJN �{P December 15, 2016 Ani Safavi 1240 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: APPEAL REGARDING THE APPROVAL TO REMOVE A PRIVATE SEQUOIA TREE Q 1261 CABRILLO AVENUE - BURLINGAME We are in receipt of a letter from the property owner at 1240 Cabrillo Avenue appealing the approval to remove the Private Sequoia tree at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue. The appeal will be forwarded to the Burlingame Beautification Commission and a hearing will be scheduled for the meeting on Thursday, January 5, 20I7. However, your letter indicated that the appeal was based on a belief that there is no damage to the home. I have attached recent photos of the damage for you to view, and a copy of the 2013 structural report. If you wish to withdrawal your appeal given the existence of such damage please let me ]mow by December 28, 2016. If you wish to proceed with the appeal it is suggested that you provide any supporting documentation regarding the appeal for the Burlingame Beautification Commissioners review by December 28, 2016 to the Parks Division office at 850 Burlingame Avenue or by email at gborba r-burlineame ore. The Beautification Commission meets at 6:30 PM at the Burlingame Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, (Social Hall) should you wish to attend and address the Commission regarding this matter. The property owner and adjacent property owners are also being sent copies of this letter, pursuant to City Ordinance, so they may attend the Commission meeting and make any comments if they wish to do so. If you have any questions, please contact our office at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/Arborist Enclosures CC: Judith Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1257 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1285 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1805 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1236 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1258 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1260 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1237 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1249 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010' Property Omer 1264 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1264 Drake Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1224 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1256 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1272 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Omer 1719 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BUR4NGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 bg_orba@burlingame.org ; December 1, 2016 Judith Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Judith, The Sequoia tree at 1261 Cabrillo was denied for removal in March of 2013 because there were no structural defects in the concrete patio and the foundation of the house was not damaged. During a recent inspection of the patio and foundation I did notice significant uplifting and cracks in both of these areas My immediate concern is with the 2 foot by 4 foot foundation; the visible cracks have compromised the foundation and have allowed water to seep through. The new cracks and movement of the foundation coincides with the Mayne Tree Expert report dated April 29, 2013. In this report, the Arborist estimates as many as 21 roots may eventually cause damage to the foundation. After three years since the report, the foundation does show damage from the roots of this tree. The concrete patio now has large cracks and has lifted in the center due to roots. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the Sequoia tree. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06. Replacement with one 24-inch box standard single stem size landscape tree (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. If you agree with the conditions, please sign the enclosed permit and return in the self-addressed envelope by December 14, 2016. 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 December 14, 2016 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued on December 14, 2016 if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincer �, V'C-10 Bob Disco Park Superintendent/City Arborist Enclosure CC: Property Owner 1249 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1272 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1805 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1256 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1285 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1257 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1260 Drake Avenue Property Owner 1258 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1264 Drake Avenue Property Owner 1264 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1719 Easton Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA94010 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 7 April 29, 2013 Cl 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 8 April 29, 2013 Pic#wSO, 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame N April 29, 2013 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 k i I b ' r- �R t � h r} Ti ate` y T rc xi` rT ril _ q, 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 14 April 29, 2013 C 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 15 April 29. 2013 l F I 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Budingame IR April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 17 April 29, 2013 1261 Cabrillo Ave., Burlingame 18 April 29, 2013 �i /11T /IAMOUDIAn & OIOCIATO ` STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1989 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Destructive tree roots December19,2016 Project No. 6333 Dear Judy: This is a follow up letter to the report that was prepared by our Office in 2013. My recommendation in the 2013 report was to remove the trees to avoid damage to the foundation. At this point there are cracks in the foundation that have been caused by the roots of the said tress, and the recommendation remains the same as noted below. (� Recommendations from 2013 report 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 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www.mmaengineers.com / 11T MMOUDIAn IS OIOCIATO STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1969 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Destructive tree roots 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 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www.mmaengineers.com / 11T MMOUDIAn & AIIOCIATO 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. O O 851 BURLWAY ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 T 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www.mmalengineers.com 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. Steve & Melissa Macko 125-7 Cotlorft l0 NRC-. The home pictured on the front of this package is located between Easton and Broadway adjacent to the Creek. It is one of the older homes on Cabrillo. The home was built in 1910 is therefore 106 years old. We have attempted to keep the front of the house as close as possible to original in an effort to maintain the Heritage of the home including the forestation around the house. Over the years we began to see damage around the home and suspected the Sequoia Gigantia to be the problem. We hired an independent Arborist and Civil Engineer to evaluate the current and future impact of the tree. Both reports advised that the damage was due to the root base of the tree. Each report determined that the tree has and would continue to violate the house and surrounding patios. We applied to the Parks and Recreation Department to remove the Sequoia Gigantia tree. The tree is and was growing in close proximity to the home causing damage to the patio. The patio slate stones are being lifted due to the tree roots. (Picture of the roots 3 Y2 years ago are included in this package) We were denied removal, at that time, as it was felt the damage to the patio did not qualify for removal of the tree. We were advised that the damage had to be to the foundation of the property before consideration. We are now experiencing damage to the home foundation. The Foundation has buckled and has severe cracks. We contacted both the engineer and arborist to view the damage. The Civil Engineers report is attached and states that he expected the damage. We are presently waiting for the Arborist report which should be available by the January 5`h. The Arborist verbally advised that the damage was inevitable and will continue. The Director of Parks and Recreation has granted a permit after viewing the foundation damage. We request the Committee grant us the approval to avoid further damage and expense. We thank you for your time, Jack McManus and Judith Day Monday, December 26, 2016 To the beautification committee members RE: 1261 Cabrillo Sequoia removal Hello, Myself and Gloria live on Cabrillo very close to Sequoia tree and have asked the neighbor directly to please reconsider it's removal from the front of her property. We feel strongly that a healthy, protected tree of this grandeur belongs to all our us and we have a right to enjoy it for many years to come. The city ordnances were created to protect trees like this whether they belong to the city or a private residence. We feel Bob is allowing the removal of too many with insufficient, unbiased reports. We are grateful that the family has protected it for so long and strongly feel they have not met the criteria for it's removal. Please consider all other options so that we do not have to see another perfectly healthy specimen tree come down in the Easton Addition. The healthy Cypress removed at the corner of Hillside and Vancouver has left a big ugly hole on that corner which we are not happy to see. It could have been safely pruned and preserved and was not a safety threat to anyone. I went to the city to get the documents related to this tree and there are no new reports. This tree was denied by Bob Disco 3 years ago we feel that decision should stand. A Sequoia tree of this size grows very slowly. What could be the change now? As well, why can't this homeowner do her maintenance and repair a crack on her patio that is most likely to due the age of the home which settles or heaves over time. Please consider all water barrier options that could be used to save this tree and mitigate her water issue. We must all take responsibility for these big trees when we buy properties that home them. Lastly, we are all part of a larger community and environment which requires us all to do our part to protect it. Please taking a closer look at this tree and say "no" to Bob Disco's approval for it's removal. With continued drought in California is very important to keep the healthy trees that fair better under these conditions. We are already losing millions of trees in the state to beetles which the Redwoods are immune to. Please take a tougher stance on the removal of this tree. Sincerely, Ani Safavi 111T 11AMOUDIAn & AIIOIATU STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SINCE 1989 Judy Day 1261 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Destructive tree roots May 6, 2013 Project No. 6333 Dear Judy: No. C35053 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. i L 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 mar 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 stab (see attached photos) that have caused the distress. Conclusion lnvasive tree roots can cause serious damage to the foundations of homes. As the roots increase or 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 650.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 www.mmann Ol nnwrR-nnm [11K /1AMOUDIAn / IS OOCIATO 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. IN 851 BURLWAV ROAD, SUITE 519 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 - T 660.348.3457 F 650.348.7119 rme�tv_mmawnalnawrw-nnm ree roots and �oundw don damage TREE ROOTS AND FOUNDATION DAMAGE By Gary Watson Reports of building foundation subsidence have been increasing since the drought in 2005. Cracking of walls or windows is usually the first symptom noticed. Trees are sometimes blamed for subsidence of foundations. While trees can occasionally contribute to foundation subsidence by extracting water from the soil beneath them, very specific 'conditions' are required (These conditions are not often encountered in the Midwest.): o The subsoil beneath the foundation must have a moderate to high shrink -swell capacity. o There must be unusual soil drying from severe drought. o Roots must be growing near the base of the foundation, extracting soil moisture. Soil surveys such as those found at 1`it�://sails.usda.r_o�i/survey provide much information (including shrink -swell capacity and suitability for dwellings prior to development) about the native soil. In some cases a building could be built entirely on fill soil; therefore interpret the surveys carefully. A soil test may be needed. Furthermore, when soil is rewetted it will swell again causing the foundation to return to its original position. Any cracks created by the subsidence will remain. Foundation depth is important. The shallow foundations of older buildings in England subside frequently in drought years because the shallow soils dry faster and the tree roots have easier access. In the ittosJjYmmmortona rb.org/tree_-Plants(tree-and-plant-advice/horticulture-care/tree-roots-and-foundation-damage 12/23116, 8:11 AM oaoe 1 of 2 United States and particularly in the Midwest, full basements are common and it takes significant drought to dry these deeper subsoil's sufficiently for the soil to shrink and cause damage. It is not easy for roots to grow down to the base of a basement foundation and survive the seasonally wet conditions. Aggressive rooting bottomland species (i.e., willow, honeylocust, silver maple, and elm) are more likely to cause subsidence than slow growing upland species (i.e., oak and sugar maple). Subsidence is more likely to occur with shallower foundations, more severe droughts, and higher tree water requirements. Since the drought of 2005, companies have been advertising foundation repairs for damage caused by the drought. City arborists are receiving calls to remove trees circumstantially blamed for the damage. Foundation damage can occur from subsoil shrinkage during drought in the total absence of roots. CONFIRM THE INVOLVEMENT OF TREE ROOTS FIRST Before any tree is cut down, the presence of tree roots at the base of the foundation should be confirmed. Many trees have been cut down needlessly just because they were nearby. Roots normally grow horizontally and not very far beneath the soil surface. Sometimes when roots encounter the looser backf ill soil near the foundation, they can abruptly start growing down. You may be able to locate these roots, if they exist, by digging a foot or two deep within a few feet of the foundation. If you find a suspect root, cut it off. Unfortunately, in some cases excavation down to the base of the foundation may be necessary. This may have to be done anyway to repair and stabilize it. Cutting the roots should prevent future problems, especially if a root barrier is installed to prevent re -growth. https://vnvvi.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-and-plant-advice/horticulture-care/tree-roots-and-foundation-damage 12123116, 8:11 AM Page 2 of 2 12/25/2016 Cmcked Foundations I Foundation Cracking Its nearly impossible to tell what causes foundation cracking if you're not an expert in engineering and foundation repair. Still, there are some common root problems that are severe enough to cause a foundation to shift and pull apart, and almost all of them have to do with soil quality and moisture. More specifically, most foundation problems are related to poor soil beneath the foundation that is either from settling or has uneven moisture content. Se line Soil: If your soil is settling, you've probably got your home builder to blame. Its usually the result of poorly tamped footers or of a build site where loose fill dirt was used to level out the ground under one side of the foundation. Soil Moisture: Besides settling soil, varying degrees of soil moisture in the soil around your foundation are the most common sources of foundation cracking. Soil shrinks when it dries and expands when it's wet. A home where soil moistures vary in areas around and under the foundation can suffer a cracked foundation from the differences in pressure on the concrete, brick, or masonry blocks that make up your foundation walls and floors. C aN are a Strr9lictural im==ng� neer If your home is the victim of cracked foundations, the first thingyou should do is call in a structural engineer to evaluate the problem for you. A structural engineer usually performs two services for people with cracked foundations. The first is to identify the source of the problem by investigating your foundation and the soil around it. The second is to draw up a plan for repairing the problem and making sure it doesn't happen again. Another reason that its a good idea to hire a structural engineer for an initial diagnosis is because they can serve as an honest third parry once you start taking bids on the repair. Since they don't have a stake in the process after diagnosing the problem and determining a path of action, you can use their report and suggestions as a way to evaluate the honesty, and experience, of whoever you bring in to bid on the repair itself. Foundation Repair Structural engineers are likely to recommend one of two types of foundation repair for homes suffering from cracked foundations. The first is mudjacking, a process in which a concrete mix called "grout" is pumped beneath your foundation to raise it up to its original height. This solution is perfect for homes where foundation problems are the result of settling soil that has caused the foundation to shift and settle. If your foundation problems are more severe, however, you might need to look into piering to shore up your settling foundation. This process includes drilling steel piers down to bedrock or a suitable soil layer, and then attaching them to your foundation to raise it up to its original height. NEED TO FIND A PRO FOR YOUR CRACKED FOUNDATION? Find Pros Act QuicCdy! http://www.homeadvisorwnVr/cracked-foundation/#.WGCneSM&ly4 2/5 Sunday, December 25, 2016 Dear beautification committee, Re: 1261 Cabrillo Sequoia please deny removal I'm Linda Ryan from 1532 Drake Avenue and I am lucky to live across the street from a healthy grove of redwood trees. These trees like the Sequoia on Cabrillo provide us with much needed shade, a wind break and, they help reduce airport noise. These trees are healthy natives which help extract the bad carbons out our air improving our air quality. Most importantly, they are beautiful, they are home to wildlife and they add aesthetic value to our homes. Please reconsider the approval to remove this grand tree that has been a living member our community for approximately 80 years. I would love to see these healthy trees preserved for future generations to enjoy. The application to remove this tree was denied 3 years ago. What has changed in the last 3 years that could be significant enough to warrant it's removal now? As of 12/20 there was no new report on file with the city so it seems this request should be denied again. Can you please require the homeowner explore all alternatives that would save this healthy, beautiful tree? A root barrier could be put in place to mitigate future damage. After reading the structural engineers report that was done 3 years ago it doesn't conclusively blame the tree for the crack on front patio. He says that it "can" and then he also says this type of damage can happen to a 100 year old house. I am currently working with an engineer and soils engineer to repair 6 foundation cracks I have in my home which was built in 1933. 1 have no significant trees on the property and it was deemed a typical problem of settlement and/or heave from the soil over time. It is my responsibility to repair the house as part on regular home maintenance. We truly appreciate that the homeowners have been faithful guardians of this tree for many years but we feel it should be a protected, heritage tree in Burlingame We hope that they and the city will reconsider this trees removal and find a solution to protect it. We are seeing so many of the larger trees coming out forever changing the look of Burlingame and we are disappointed. Thank you, Linda & Frank Ryan, 1532 Drake Avenue Alvin S. Begun & Brian Benn of Burlingame agree with this letter. Sunday, December 25, 2016 Dear beautification committee, Please reconsider the removal of the Sequoia at 1261 Cabrillo. We are saddened to see the city approve yet another large heritage tree in town. We are avid walkers and are seeing too many of the larger trees being removed from the neighborhoods. Please work with the homeowner to come up with a plan so that they can preserve the tree. Thank you for enforcing the tree protection ordinance. David Burke 2020 Adeline Drive Monday, December 26, 2016 City commissioners, I have heard that another healthy, protected tree is slated for removal at 1261 Cabrillo. Our friends near say the case to remove it is weak and it was denied 3 years ago. What could be a fair reason to change that decision? Please protect our larger trees and exercise all other options to preserve a beloved big tree in the Easton Addition. I would say that these decisions are depreciating the beauty of the neighborhood and are very bad for the environment. The large redwoods help clean the air which we need being so close to the airport. Please say do not approve this tree removal. Sarah Douglass 1410 Montero Avenue Burlingame CA Monday, December 19, 2016 I am writing to support keeping the wonderful sequoia at 1261 Cabrillo intact. Burlingame is starting to lose our stock of older trees; as we are known as the City of Trees it would be great to do all we can to keep our dwindling stock of mature trees so I implore the city and the homeowner to find a way to maintain the tree in place. With thanks for considering this. Chris and Liz McCrum 1540 Drake Ave Burlingame Chins l�ii cECrum cell: 415 ; 86 4508 City of Burlingame, 12/23/2016 My name is Chris Clutton. I operate a landscape service in Mendocino County. Having served on the Fort Bragg Tree Committee I understand the many challenges to keeping healthy trees in our cities. My good friend Benita Zimmerman lives in Burlingame with her dog Karma. We love to walk through the neighborhoods near her home. One of the things I love about our walks is the mature trees that have grown up with the city! Trees add beauty and help soften the urban landscape. A few other benefits of trees are providing cooling shade and calming high winds. It is sad when a tree has to be removed for any reason but to take down a healthy one is great loss! I hope the City of Burlingame understands the value of trees and will not allow healthy trees to be removed. The Sequoia Gigantea at 1261 Cabrillo Dr is a beautiful tree that appears to be very healthy and is an asset to the neighborhood. I feel strongly that t should not be removed! Sincerely, Chris Clutton Phone 707 964-1732 P.O.Box 2143 Fort Bragg, CA 95437 AIVGELA INGEL Sll Raixa:mn:\�'[. Rcw.n'ra�w C.�ueomu 94010 Tnunmt 415.13+899 :\vercao'at.av�cu,..cov December 19, 2016 To Whom This May Concern, This letter is to demonstrate my support to save a healthy Sequoia on 1261 Cabrillo. I moved my family to Burlingame because it is known for its high residential quality of life and is often referred to as the City of Trees. But slowly, those trees are being cut down in the prime of their lives. Often their significance is over -ruled by homeowners who would rather dispose of a perfectly healthy tree instead of invest in alternative options such as making repairs. Although I'm thankful that they have been protectors of this tree up till now, I'd greatly appreciate it if the homeowner could consider exploring every available possibility to save the sequoia before ruling to tear it down. Trees give us oxygen, they maintain the ecological balance, affect wildlife and even our rainfall. If we continually cut them down, one neighbor at a time, the compounded impact would not only severally affect our habitat, it would negate many of the reasons people choose to live here in Burlingame. From a very concerned neighbor, Angela Ingel December 27, 2016 To: Burlingame Beautification Committee From: Benita Zimmerman Re: 1261 Cabrillo Sequoia — request for denial of sequoia tree removal I have been a resident of Burlingame for 53 years and have seen the senseless removal of many of the neighborhood trees in recent years. Burlingame is known as the City of Trees and it would be tragic to see another beautiful tree be cut down unnecessarily. The structural engineers report that was completed 3 years ago, does not conclusively blame the tree for the crack on the front patio at 1261 Cabrillo. The probable cause could just be the settlement which occurs over the years and is a natural occurrence. I have seen many new cracks in my walls and patio over the years appear which I've been told is just natural settling of the home and the foundation. This tree provides oxygen, a home for birds and squirrels, and shade to all who enjoy its beauty. Please deny the removal of this beautiful, healthy sequoia as it will once again, take away from the landscape in our neighborhood that we all love so very much. UtaZaimmerma 1812 Devereux Driv Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)259-7797 EXHIBIT I Burlingame Beautification Commissioners Bob Disco, Parks Dept. c/o Gina Borba 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 December 27, 2016 RE: 1261 Cabrillo Avenue property Dear Honorable Commissioners: This letter is intended to provide you with a little background information regarding the property history at 1261 Cabrillo Avenue, built sometime between 1910 and 1914. According to city directories, the property was the Lane Family home in the early 1930s, shortly after patriarch Laurence Lane of Iowa raised enough money to purchase the Southern Pacific Railroad's literary magazine, "Sunset", developing it with his family, into an iconic publication of Western living over the next several decades. Sons William "Bill" Jr. and Mel Lane, became significant conservation philanthropists using Sunset magazine as a vehicle to advocate for many environmental causes —from the preservation of National Parks and coastal waters (Mel was the first chairman of the Coastal commission) to the banning of DDT while actively urging readers not to use the chemical in their gardens, no cause was too daunting to tackle. Though there is no known record linking the Lane family to the planting of the large redwood tree on the property, there are accounts that Ruth Bell Lane worked at home testing recipes in the kitchen and experimented with various plantings in the garden. The property has changed hands several times since the Lanes moved out in the mid-1930s. It is highly likely that part of the appeal and tangible value of the home (and parcel) at each sale has been this linked to the beautiful tree that has adorned this home and neighborhood for many decades. Sincerely yours, Jennifer Pfaff 615 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame