The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - BC - 2021.05.06CITY m growwre Thursday, May 6, 2021 City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final Beautification Commission 6:30 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Via Zoom Webinar 1010 Burlingame Avenue City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 412812021 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final May 6, 2021 On March 17, 2020, the Governor issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings telephonically or by other electronic means. Pursuant to the Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the San Mateo County Health Officer on March 16, 2020, the statewide Shelter -in -Place Order issued by the Governor in Executive Order N-33-20 on March 19, 2020, and the CDC's social distancing guidelines which discourage large public gatherings, the Recreation facilities will not be open to the public for the May 6, 2021 Beautification meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging into the Zoom meeting listed below. The meeting video will be uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to gborba@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the Consent Calendar. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that your comment is received and read to the Beautification Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on May 6, 2021. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will be read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Beautification Commission after the meeting. All votes are unanimous unless separately noted for the record. Invitation for public notice: You are invited to a Zoom webinar. When: May 6, 2021 06:30 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Topic: Burlingame Beautification Commission Please click the link below to join the webinar: httpsJ/us02web.zoom. us/j/86903387033?pwd=enNEbOZJS 1 pUYm9nc 110Y09yMEJPZz09 Passcode:644541 Or One tap mobile: US: +16699006833„ 86903387033#.... *644541 # or +13462487799„ 86903387033#.... *644541 # Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592 Webinar ID: 869 0338 7033 Passcode:644541 International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kedL3Peg1c 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. MINUTES City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 412812021 Beautification Commission Meeting Agenda - Final May 6, 2021 a. Minutes Attachments: April 1, 2021 Minutes 4. CORRESPONDENCE 5. FROM THE FLOOR Speakers may address the Commission concerning any matter over which the Commission has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. Additional public comments on agenda action items will be heard when the Commission takes up those items. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although provision of name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, although the Commission may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. OLD BUSINESS a. Update from Chair of the Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award b. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update C. Appeal to the Approved Private Redwood Tree Removal at 717 Crossway Road Attachments: Staff Report 7. NEW BUSINESS a. Oath of Office for New Commissioner Carol Batte b. Commissioner Discussion of Tree Walking Tour 8. REPORTS 9. UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS Next Regular Meeting: June 3, 2021 Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities should contact the Parks & Recreation Dept. at (650) 558-7330 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is available for review at the Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue, during normal office hours. The Agendas and minutes are also available on the City's website: www.burlingame.org. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Burlingame Beautification Commission regarding any items on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at 850 Burlingame Avenue during normal business hours. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 412812021 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes April 1, 2021 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order via Zoom at 6:35 pm by Chair Hunt. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunt, Kirchner, Kearney, and Bauer Absent: None Staff. Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Superintendent/City Arborist Disco and Recording Secretary Borba Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Kearney made a motion to approve the March 4, 2021 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirchner and was approved 4-0. CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT None OLD BUSINESS 1. Update from Chair of the Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Commission Bauer reported she is working on publicity for both awards and stated she created a flyer to post on Next Door, Facebook, eNews, and Instagram. 2. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update Commissioner Kirchner reported he and Commissioner Bauer are putting together an outline of what will be included in the Trees of Burlingame book. It will loosely follow the 1977 version of the book. Commissioner Kirchner requested that the Commissioners develop a list of important trees in Burlingame to be included in the publication. Commissioner Kirchner stated that Jennifer Pfaff with the Burlingame Historical Society would be providing pictures and information for the book. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appeal to the Approved Private Redwood Tree Removal at 717 Crossway Road Chair Hunt recused herself from the appeal hearing. Director Glomstad read the staff report. Commissioner Kearney inquired if the roots were damaging the main structure or just the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Arborist Disco responded that it appeared to be just the ADU. Commissioner Kirchner stated the damage to the ADU did not show in 2015 when the permit was denied, and he inquired what had changed since then. Arborist Disco stated the current independent arborist report was accurate. The roots are damaging the structure. Commissioner Kirchner stated there was some mention in the packet that the tree was 200 years old. Arborist Disco stated that he believes the tree is 95-100 years old. Commissioner Bauer asked if the tree had grown significantly since 2015. Arborist Disco confirmed the tree and roots had grown. Public Comment — None Appellant — Steven Crocker stated that the large Redwood tree with a 1.5-meter diameter trunk at breast height is a tall, healthy, beautiful tree and is visible and enjoyed by all in the neighborhood, including many species of wildlife. Mr. Crocker informed the Commission that the original detached garage became a one -bedroom ADU unit, now one foot from the large roots. He stated the tree was protected from removal five and a half years ago when the tree was trimmed. Mr. Crocker stated the property was recently purchased and the roots were causing damage at that time. Mr. Crocker explained the tree is in the prime of its life, is attributing to the beauty of the neighborhood, and a home to wildlife. He stated that it could live for many more years and is irreplaceable in our lifetimes or our children's. Mr. Crocker stated the garage is on a hundred -year -old foundation and at the end of its life expectancy with no historical significance. He stated there is room for the main building, an outbuilding, and the tree on this property and hoped this majestic tree would not be removed at the expense of a 100-year-old building at the end of its life. Mr. Crocker explained Burlingame is a "City of Trees" thanks to the generations before that did not cut down beautiful trees. He stated we should be careful to preserve the irreplaceable while we have it and encouraged the Commissioners to vote to preserve the tree. Respondent -None Commissioner Discussion Commissioner Kearney stated it is a very difficult decision whether to preserve the tree or allow it to come down. However, the roots are damaging the foundation of the building, and that is dangerous. Commissioner Bauer agreed with Commissioner Kearney that it is difficult to approve the removal of a 100-year-old tree, especially when the Commission is here to preserve trees. Commissioner Bauer stated it would have been helpful to hear from the respondent. Commissioner Kirchner stated that he noticed a structural engineer's report was mentioned and it would have been helpful to have the report. Commissioner Kirchner mentioned the tree is causing issues and the cost of repair and litigation is a burden to the property owner. Commissioner Kirchner suggested that the appeal be tabled until next month to see if more information could be brought to the Commissioners by the respondents. Commissioner Kearney and Commissioner Bauer both stated they agreed. Commissioner Kirchner made a motion to table the appeal to the Approved Private Redwood Tree Removal at 717 Crossway Road until the May 2021 meeting to get more information from the respondent on the future plans for the property and the engineer's report. Commissioner Bauer seconded the motion and was approved 3-0-1. REPORTS 1. Director Glomstad Director Glomstad reported in May, the Beautification Commission should have a new Commissioner. Director Glomstad informed the Commission that on Saturday, the Recreation Division would be hosting the annual Egg Hunt and Pancake Breakfast in Washington Park in conjunction with the Lions Club. Director Glomstad stated the Egg Hunt and Pancake Breakfast would be Covid compliant. Director Glomstad updated the Commissioners that the Community Center is moving forward on target and is scheduled for completion in May 2022. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist None 2. Commissioner Hunt None 3. Commissioner Bauer None 4. Commissioner Kirchner None 5. Commissioner Kearney None The next Beautification Commission meeting is May 6, 2021. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:17 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Administrative Staff ffl?kME STAFF REPORT "W To: Beautification Commission Date: May 6, 2021 From: Margaret Glomstad, Director of Parks and Recreation Subject: Appeal to the Removal of a Redwood Tree at 717 Crossway Road RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission deny or uphold the appeal. BACKGROUND A Private Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the City to remove the redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. The redwood tree is growing in the house's backyard and next to an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The permit stated that the roots were "lifting the house/cottage and affecting the foundation." The tree was approved for removal by the City Arborist, and the permit was appealed. The Beautification Commission reviewed the appeal at the April 1, 2021 meeting (Exhibit A). During the April Beautification Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed the staff report, the independent arborist report and listened to the comments from the appellant. The applicant (Fiona Hua) did not attend the meeting, and no comments were submitted. In the independent arborist report submitted with the permit, the arborist refers to an engineer's report regarding the effect of the redwood tree roots on the ADU unit. Ms. Hua did not submit the engineer's report with the permit. After discussion by the Commission, the Commission decided to table the appeal until May and requested the applicant submit the engineer's report (Exhibit B). Ms. Hua was subsequently notified and has submitted invoices for the repairs to the sewer line and the engineer's report. DISCUSSION 1 717 Crossway Rd. Appeal May 6, 2021 The engineer's report identified that the foundation of the ADU is "made of slab concrete on grade." The report also noted the probability that the large tree is impacting the building's foundation, and "the presence of the tree roots has impacted the east corner of the back -house foundation." The engineer recommends root barriers to prevent roots from further damaging the foundation, but the independent arborist report recommends against this because the work would damage many of the structural roots keeping the tree upright and stable. The applicant also informed staff that the tree was planted in 1939, and the sewer lines were replaced in 2020 before the house was sold. Action The Commissioners are asked to weigh the content of the staff report and supporting documentation and listen to the interested parties before making a decision. The options include: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the removal based on Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance 11.06.060 (d)(1) "the condition of the tree with respect to the proximity to existing or proposed structures"... and (7) "the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain." 2. Uphold the appeal and deny the removal based on the current health and structure of the tree. Exhibits: A. April 1, 2021 Staff Report B. Minutes from April 1, 2021 Beautification Commission Meeting. C. Sewer Lateral Invoices and Building Permits D. Engineer's Report 2 EXHIBIT A � CITV - T STAFF REPORT To: Beautification Commission Date: April 1, 2021 From: Margaret Glomstad, Director of Parks and Recreation Subject: Appeal to the Removal of a Redwood Tree at 717 Crossway Road RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission deny or uphold the appeal. BACKGROUND In November 2015, the previous homeowner, at 717 Crossway Road, applied for a Private Tree Removal Permit to remove a redwood tree stating the "roots were encroaching onto water and sewer lines causing years of back up to cottage" (Exhibit A). The City Arborist denied the permit because the tree was healthy, had good form, and did not meet the Municipal Code's criteria. At that time, there was no indication of structural damage to the auxiliary dwelling unit (ADU). A second Private Tree Removal Permit was submitted to the City to remove the redwood tree by the current homeowner (Exhibit B). The redwood tree is growing in the backyard of the house and next to the ADU. The permit stated that the roots were "lifting the house/cottage and affecting the foundation." Included with the permit was an independent arborist report from Advanced Tree Care (Exhibit C). From a visual inspection, the City Arborist noted that the tree's buttress roots appear to be encroaching on the foundation and cracking the interior walls. Removal was approved based on the City Arborist's inspection, supporting documentation submitted by the homeowner, and Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance section 11.06.060 (d)(1)(7) (Exhibit D). DISCUSSION In the packet for this appeal are several letters from surrounding homeowners, three against the removal and two for the removal (Exhibit E), as well as the appellant's required documentation letter (Exhibit F). 1 717 Crossway Rd. Appeal Aprll 1, 2021 The redwood tree is approximately 90-100 years old and is healthy with good structure and good vigor. The trunk is straight and does not have co -dominant leaders, and the buttress roots appear normal for the support of the tree. The foliage has good color and appears healthy and normal for the species with no signs of pests or disease. As described in the independent arborist report, the City Arborist concurs that any root pruning or installation of a root barrier to stop the damage to the ADU would structurally compromise the tree's stability and is not recommended. ADU Since questions were raised about the ADU legality, the City Arborist asked the Community Development Department staff to research the property. They found an assessor's report from 1939 stating the ADU was converted from an existing garage before the City code prohibited such conversions. Therefore, the ADU holds the status of existing, non -conforming, and is eligible to receive a current ADU permit for upgrades or enlargement of the structure. Based the status of the ADU, its legality does not pertain to the decision -making process to determine the outcome of the appeal. In addition, the Community Development Department is unaware of plans to develop this property, and no permits or design review plans have been submitted to the City for review. Action The Commissioners are asked to weigh the content of the staff report and supporting documentation and listen to the interested parties before making a decision. The options include: 1. Deny the appeal and approve the removal based on Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance 11.06.060 (d)(1) "the condition of the tree with respect to the proximity to existing or proposed structures"... and (7) "the economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain." 2. Uphold the appeal and deny the removal based on the current health and structure of the tree. Exhibits: A. 2015 Denied Private Protected Tree Removal Permit B. 2021 Private Protected Tree Removal Permit C. Advanced Tree Care Report — February 3, 2021 D. City Arborist Approval Letter E. Surrounding Homeowner Letters F. Appellant's Packet 2 EXHIBIT A PROTECTED TREE REN,,-., v tvju - - PERMIT APPLICATION x Parks and Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-73.10 Date: r ; The undersigned owner of the property at: Address: --:7Z' % c'/t''o � ., '-I /,-,. r ,`- hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1 /3 of the canopy or roots of the following protected tree(s): Specie: _ Circumference: ' Location on Property - ( Work to be Performed:--..------- Removal — _ Trim More Than 113 of the Crown I 4 Reason Work is Necessary:-- _ __._..___._ �• _ � t --_ �, _. =-- Note: A photograph of the trees) and a se`heinatic drawing of the -location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with a $75.00 check to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from till Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.). r OWNER (Print),..5" ;fJN ?"�F°1' , .1 '� PHONE zr'� ADDRESS EMAIL a --=----===-=---------L--==---- ---------------------- =� S is tk� - `� 1 l� ! ................ PERMIV OFFICE v This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions ofthe Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter] 1.06). By signing this permit. the 'J applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all �Y conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. („ a OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or tuft trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fiend will be required_ NO replacement(v) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completer. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMITEXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job, site at all times when work is being performed. 041201Srevised City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 Adftk BURLINGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 gborba@burlingame.org November 18, 2015 Susan L. Harris 717 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE. REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF ONE REDWOOD TREE @ 717 CROSSWAYROAD — BURLINGAME I reviewed your request for the removal of the above mentioned tree at the above address and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: 1) During my visual inspection of this Redwood tree I have determined thatthis tree is in good to fair health. The Redwood tree has good vigor, normal annual shoot growth, a large root buttress and is in good form. 2) The canopy of the tree is dense with excessive end weight and deadwood. I recommend the canopy be thinned by a professional tree service to reduce the potential of future limb failure. 3) Therefore, this application is denied. Adjacent property owner(s) listed below are also receiving notification of this decision. The decision may be appealed in writing to the Burlingame Beautification Commission, 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame or gborba@but•lingame.org by Noveinber30, 2015 and should include any documentation supporting your request for removal of the tree. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the at (650) 558-7330. Sincerely, Bob Disco Parks Supervisor/City Arborist bd/gb CC: Property Owner 709 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 721 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 712 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 714 Fairingdon Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner 1280 Oak Grove Avenue 1286 Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 713 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 716 Farringdon Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 718 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner 1272 Oak Grove Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 -G EXHIBIT B PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL BtJRUNGAME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks and Recreation Department 1010 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Ito Date: (650) 559-7330 - gborba&urling"morg The under,� ,� �f 2 c7 2 I signed owner of the property at: Address: 7 C „ d hereby appliesor a permit t rernov� prune m than 1 of the opy of the following protected tree(s): Sp"se:- ' Bd Circumference: 2 t Location on Property (W��/1 CORa dtaer�L Work to be Performed: Removal V,- Trim More Than 113 of the Crown Reason Work is Neel Is this Tree Removal Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the trees) on the property must b� s Zhmitted along with a S100.00 payment to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may kam (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, levers of concernfrom neighbors, etc.). OWNER (Print)_ PHONE c33� 73b ADDRESS (if different from above) EMAIL !,'r%,U2 uk1a__60 o&a..9m PERMIT — OFFICE cc I �+ '►1 Payment Rec. 7 1 Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed trees) m accordance with the prowstons of the ,,, m Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code perrmii, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter11and Chapter i I.06). By signing this provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all agrees to comply with its appeals have expinedsrr been solved_ OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: O O � 24 - itck box size standard single stem landscgpe &w(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will berequired and May be anted anywhere p per& l! conditions are not met witki N Ike allotted time as sprepd in C`Jiapter I L06.090.(b)(5), paymeul of a1,100.0iI for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. i'al0 replacement(s) required Contact Ike Parks Division at (650) 559-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffec tim until after Building Commission review and approval: DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of Air permit must be available at the job site at a l hues when work is big performed 7�®2'd .nGSM1 t ,p6Sira F�r.4tt4 �T e fL war: 0 ' t EXHIBIT C Advanced Tree Care 965 East San Carlos, San Carlos CA 94070 ----------------------------------------------------- Fiona Hua 717 Crossway Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 February 3, 2021 Site: 717 Crossway Rd, Burlingame Dear Fiona Re: Redwood tree at rear of property 650 839 9539 I looked at the redwood and have the following observations and recommendations. Observations My inspection was conducted from the ground without climbing into the tree. The redwood was measured and photographed; observations and details are noted of the tree and site. The root crown around the base of the tree was inspected to determine the integrity of the roots. The redwood is located at the rear of the property between the main house and a second unit at the rear of the property. The tree can be seen in the attached photos. Coastal redwood, Sequoia sempervirens Diameter at Standard Height: 69.8" Height: 80 feet Canopy spread: 40' x 40' The redwood is in good health and condition. The canopy is thick and healthy, the trunk is straight with no co -dominant trunks. The root flare is large and spreading beneath the rear property. The root flare is undermining the foundation of the rear building causing cracking of the interior walls. The root flare has also directed surface water to the corner of the front house causing ponding at the corner of the property. This has been recorded in the Engineers Report by Lei Zheng, dated 10/23/20. Recommendations The redwood is in good health and condition but is causing significant damage to both the front and the rear property. Further damage could be prevented with root pruning and installing a root barrier. Root pruning would need to be done within a foot of the tree's root flare and would require cutting many of the structural roots that keep the tree stable and upright. This would jeopardize the stability of the tree and would have to be repeated every 5 to 7 years and therefore not a viable option. To prevent further damage to both properties, the only solution would be tree removal. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely Robert Weatherill Certified Arborist WE 1936a EXHIBIT D City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 1010 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 BURUNGAME phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-7216 ,gborba@burlingame.org March 4, 2021 Fiona Hua 717 Crossway Road Burlingame, CA 94010 I reviewed your request for the removal of one (1) Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: The Redwood tree is in good health and has good structure with no co -dominant leaders or indication of disease. The tree is growing 1ft from an existing structure. The roots from the tree are encroaching on the foundation and there is signs of cracking on the internal wall of the structure. Therefore, I intend to issue a permit for the removal of the one (1) Redwood tree that is damagingthe foundation of the existing structure and will cause economic consequences to the property owner if the tree is left to remain. The tree is subject to the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06.060(d)(1)(7). (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease; danger of falling; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public utility services; (7) The economic consequences and obligations of requiring a tree to remain. Replacement with one 24-inch box standard size single stem landscape trees (no fruit or nut) will be required to be planted anywhere on the private property as defined in Section 11.06.090. if you agree with the conditions, pleasesign the enclosed permit and email or mail back BEFORE March 17, 2021. - Adjacent property owner(s) witbin 100 feet of the property listed above 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 March 17, 2021 as provided in Section 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). The permit will be issued at the end of the work day on March 17, 2021, if no appeal has been received by that date. Sincerely, 1, Bob Disco Park Superintendent/City Arborist Certified Arborist WE-6891A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor bd/gb CC: Adjacent Property Owners EXHIBIT E PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Noah Holmes <noah.holmes@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 9:48 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: 717 Crossway Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Dear Arborist Disco, While I appreciate all of the things you have done for the city of Burlingame, your continued hard work and thoughtful decision making process, I wanted to see if I could share my opinion with you regarding a recent decision. As a homeowner in the city of Burlingame, one of the things I loved the most about moving here in 2015 is the charm and overall sense of character the city offers its residents. A very large part of this has to do with the city's longtime love affair with the trees that existed here, even before the city was established. When a local neighbor shared the news of the recent decision to authorize the removal of the beautiful and stately two hundred year old redwood tree from the property of 717 Crossway Road, my heart sank. I am saddened by the thought of our community possibly losing one of the greater redwood trees in the area. While I am aware we live in a free country where I believe property owners should have every right to do with their property as they well please, I feel that these new owners don't carry the overall character of the city in their hearts. It appears that the new owners only wish to update the questionable in-law unit that originally served as a garage when the property was originally built for their own needs, tree bedamned. Is there no middle ground? I lack the knowledge and wisdom in such matters, so I ask you as the city arborist: Can we trim just offending roots or find a way to keep this majestic tree yet allow for the new home owners to move forward with their construction? There are nights when I can hear our own resident owl hooting as it hunts for food or looks for a mate in the Oak Grove neighborhood of Burlingame. These trees serve as its home and refuge, along with various squirrels that frolic in our backyards. I would hate to see this tree be removed only for the sake of allowing someone to pursue an increase in property value or to shore up their garage foundation. The tree was'clearly there when the home was purchased just a few weeks ago. I would love to see it there when I retire thirty years from now. Regards, A Ki Noah Holmes Registered Voter Tax Paver Homeowner i 1 �j Veteran Millbrae Native PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 11:27 AM To: 'Stephen Rosenholtz' Cc: PARKS -Bob Disco Subject: RE: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway Attachments: Independant Arborist Report at 717 Crossway Road.pdf Dear Mr. Rosenholtz, I have received your appeal request for the approved removal of a Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. Your appeal hearing will be heard at the April 1, 2021 Burlingame Beautification Commission (BBC) Meeting that is held via Zoom at 6:30 pm. More information regarding the BBC meeting will follow. Please submit any supporting documentation that you would like included in the Commissioners packets by Monday, March 22, 2021. I have attached the independent arborist report submitted with the Protected Tree Removal Permit 717 Crossway Road so you can see where the tree is at structurally and health wise since the last permit denial on November 18, 2015. Kind regards, W�' R, Gina Borba eu�uncn•Administrative Assistant II I Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010�BBuurlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 ' MI From: Stephen Rosenholtz [mailto:srosenholt@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 10:30 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Subject: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Mr. Disco, i live across the street from the Redwood tree in question. I wish to appeal your decision to allow removal. It is a beautiful, healthy tree. Five years ago you denied removal and recommended thinning of the canopy. (I attach a copy of your letter of denial). Surely something could be done to save this tree. We have precious few Redwoods in Burlingame Terrace. Please reverse your decision. Thank you, Stephen Rosenholtz 712 Crossway Rd. Burlingame PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Stephen Rosenholtz <srosenholt@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:49 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Re: FW: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. That's fine with me, Gina. Thanks, Stephen Rosenholtz On Mon, Mar 15, 2021 at 1:47 PM PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <G13orbanbu.rIingame.org> wrote: Hi Stephen, I have just received an appeal letter from Stephen Crocker regarding the approved removal of a Redwood tree at 717 Crossway. He stated he would like to spearhead the appeal, but since I received you're appeal first I would like to make sure that is agreeable to you. Mostly it would be his name on the appeal letter that will go out and he would submit any supporting documentation. You are welcome to include information regarding the appeal it would just be under his name. Please let me know. Thank you, Gina Borba ou , ..m"t7 Administrative Assistant II 1 Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:23 PM To: 'Donald Doyle' Subject: RE: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. Hello Mr. Doyle, Thank you for your email. The City only issues the permit for removal of protected size trees. Due to the tree being on private property the City cannot dictate whom removes the tree or offer any recommendations. You as a neighbor can speak to the homeowner and voice your concerns however. It also looks like there might be an appeal against the approved removal of the Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road on April 1, 2021 at 6:30 pm via Zoom at the Burlingame Beautification Commission Meeting. You are also welcome to voice your opinion there. Kind regards, Gina Borba Administrative Assistant II I Parks I Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 —� 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 849 From: Donald Doyle[mailto:ddcustomfab@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:22 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Subject: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms. Borba, I reside at 721 Crossway Rd. and do not object to the removal of the Redwood tree. However, I would like to be sure a reputable company with experience be used for the job. It is very tight clearances involved including the shared driveway between the houses. Thank you, Donald Doyle (650) 348-5913 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:30 PM To: 'stcrock3@yahoo.com' Subject: Appeal of Decision on Redwood Tree 717 Crossway Attachments: Independant Arborist Report at 717 Crossway Road.pdf Dear Mr. Crocker, I have received your appeal request for the approved removal of a Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. Your appeal hearing will be heard at the April 1, 2021 Burlingame Beautification Commission (BBC) Meeting that is held via Zoom at 6:30 pm. More information regarding the BBC meeting will follow. Please submit any supporting documentation that you would like included in the Commissioners packets by Monday, March 22, 2021. I have attached the independent arborist report submitted with the Protected Tree Removal Permit 717 Crossway Road so you can see where the tree is at structurally and health wise since the last permit denial on November 18, 2015. Kind regards, Gina Borba svitu%rA r I Administrative Assistant II 1 Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 00- 0 Steven Crocker & Maria Patino 1280 Oak Grove Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Bob Driscol Park Superintendent/City Arborist 1010 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, Ca 94010 March 15, 2021 Dear Mr. Driscol, Regarding the notice sent to neighbors of 717 Crossway Road about your tentative decision to allow the removal of a large redwood tree at that address, we are submitting an appeal to reverse your decision and to continue providing heritage protection to the tree. That redwood is an iconic component of the tree skyline in the area and is in plain view as one drives west along Oak Grove Ave as well as from many other areas in the Burlingame Terrace neighborhood. It is a hub of activity for the local wild fauna including numerous raptors, corvids and small mammals. Your initial reasons for permitting the removal cite a building's foundation and utilities being affected by the roots of the tree. The affected foundation is of an old stand alone garage on an R-1 zoned property that was converted years ago to a one bedroom apartment (prehaps without a permit). For years the utility gas and sewer lines serving the apartment on the south and east sides lay above ground (not to code). The sewer line remains to this day above ground and lies exposed within two inches of the property line (not to code). The apartment has less than twelve inches of setback from the side property line (not to code). In effect, the apartment is a poorly located and poorly constructed building and yet its preservation is taking priority over preserving one of Burlingame's finest and oldest redwood trees. The large, beautifully symmetric, majestic tree ads a great deal of many types of value to our neighborhood while the building affected does not have as many years behind it, in front of it, nor does it contribute to the ambiance, culture and lifestyle we enjoy in Burlingame. We urge you to reconsider your position permitting the removal of this tree. Sincerely, Steven Crocker and Maria Patino 1280 Oak Grove Ave PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Josephine Park <jotwin58@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:02 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: In favor of decision to remove Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road, Burlingame CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. I am the property owner at 1272 Oak Grove Avenue which is adjacent to 717 Crossway Road. I am in favor of removing the Redwood tree that is against the shared fence (no space between base of tree and the fence). The tree has caused and continues to cause ongoing damage to the shared fence, as well as the patio and pool deck on my property. I have had to replace the fence twice and repair it once. It is now in need of major repair again. Also, a pergola on my property is also in need of repair. The patio was replaced and repaired once and is in need of repair again. The brick pool deck, on my property, is cracked due to the roots from the tree and is in need of repair. Needless to say, if the Redwood tree is left to remain it will continue to cause economic consequences to my property. I appreciate you taking my input on the removal of the Redwood tree. Josephine Park 650-740-5214 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Rachel Constable <raraneta@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:29 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Tree at 717 Crossway Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hi Bob, A concerned and I believe well-informed neighbor stopped by our home on Crossway Road to share the context about the heritage tree. I'm writing to ask that you please consider letting the tree grow and not take it down. Thank you, Rachel Constable 728 Crossway Road PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Anne Scanlan -Rohrer <annesr@mindspring.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:01 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Redwood at 717 Crossway CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Hello, I understand that there is a proposal to remove the redwood tree in the backyard of 717 Crossway. I would urge you to not grant permission to do this. I am a long-time resident of Burlingame. I grew up here and resided here until I was 22, then moved back again in 1992. Lately I have been concerned about the growing number of mature trees I am seeing cut down on the streets. It negatively affects the culture of our City of Trees, it reduces habitat for birds, and adds to climate change issues. Redwood trees have been found to be important sources of carbon sequestration. We need them! Thank you. Anne Scanlan -Rohrer annesr@mindspring.com 650-343-1465 PARKS/REC-Gina Borba From: Donald Doyle <ddcustomfab@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 22, 2021 8:05 AM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba Subject: Re: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms, Borba, I wanted to respond to the appeal. I received a flyer in the mailbox that I believe came from the folks at 1280 Oak Grove. The flyer stated the redwood tree in question is 200 years old. I was told by the previous owner that his mother had planted that tree. I am not sure exactly what year, but not 200 years ago. I am including a picture of the tree taken in May 1985. In this picture the top of the tree is visible. I hope this information will help with the decision. Donald Doyle From: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:22 PM To: Donald Doyle <ddcustomfab@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. Hello Mr. Doyle, Thank you for your email. The City only issues the permit for removal of protected size trees. Due to the tree being on private property the City cannot dictate whom removes the tree or offer any recommendations. You as a neighbor can speak to the homeowner and voice your concerns however. It also looks like there might be an appeal against the approved removal of the Redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road on April 1, 2021 at 6:30 pm via Zoom at the Burlingame Beautification Commission Meeting. You are also welcome to voice your opinion there. Kind regards, 0Gina Borba eJRUNCA.E' Administrative Assistant II 1 Parks Direct 650.558.7330 Main Office 650.558.7300 1010 Burlingame Ave I Burlingame, CA 94010 9)r►0 1 pf\(j-� � (::( s 5- From: Donald Doyle [mailto:ddcustomfab@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 12:22 PM To: PARKS/REC-Gina Borba <GBorba@burlingame.org> Subject: Tree removal at 717 Crossway Rd. CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. Ms. Borba, I reside at 721 Crossway Rd. and do not object to the removal of the Redwood tree. However, I would like to be sure a reputable company with experience be used for the job. It is very tight clearances involved including the shared driveway between the houses. Thank you, Donald Doyle (650) 348-5913 EXHIBIT F Steven Crocker and Maria Patine, 1280 Oak Grove Ave Burlingame, CA Burlingame Beautification Commission Parks & Recreation Department 1010 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA March 21, 2021 Commissioners, The issue before you is whether to permit the removal of an iconic, healthy, two to three hundred year old redwood tree at 717 Crossway Road. (see photo of tree) The property has two structures with concrete foundations: a house in front and a small detached building in back. Both structures were built in the early twentieth century. Although both are under the tree, the smaller rear building is closest to the tree's root ball. The root ball has grown to a foot from the rear structure which was originally a garage and is now a converted one bedroom apartment. (see photo of tree trunk for relative distances of tree to house and tree to original garage.) The property was purchased on Oct 28 of 2020. A previous application to remove the tree was denied on November 18, 2015. Less than six years later, the new owners are again seeking to remove the tree. Of course there are many ways of viewing the issue at hand, but I would like to highlight two: a view of the new property owner trying to prevent future structural damage to a portion of their purchase and a view of some longer term outcomes of your decision. While property values here are high and few if any vacant lots remain in this city, we commonly see the purchase of lots with older homes for the value of the land alone. Older homes here are often considered tear downs for the sake of rebuilding something newer. Thus value of a property with old structures is largely attributable to the land not the buildings. At 717 Crossway, after we deduct the value of the land, most of the remaining value of the property will belong to the main house on the front of the lot. The converted garage, due to its condition, age, and location near the property line, will have less value. If the tree is removed in order to preserve the current investment in this old outbuilding, we will be placing little value on the old majestic, beautiful, iconic tree. Protecting the tree is more important than protecting the garage. Longer Term Outcomes: We can assume the new property owner bought the house after receiving disclosures, inspection reports, hearing realtors' observations, and by using their own judgment, with full knowledge of the existence of the tree and it's proximity to the converted garage and knew about the denied application from six years previously. The tree is on a large lot of 7,919 sq. ft. As property values trend upward, older structures on lots tend to be leveled and new houses constructed in their place. Older structures are adding less market value to their properties as the market trends upward, and will continue to disappear. It would have been likely outcome of the sale of the property for a developer to buy, tear down the old buildings and put up a new house around the old tree. But today, if the permit is allowed, we could end up with the exact opposite, no tree on a lot with an old house and an old outbuilding. On the other hand, if the current permit is denied, the new owner will gain experience with their use of the outbuilding and can target upgrades to the structure in a way that works with the tree. If over time, they discover the tree and the old structure are financially incompatible, they may need to modify or remove the structure. In any case that is something the new owner should have thought through with the information they had before the sale and made an offer accordingly. Let's not end up with the worst scenario, loosing an iconic tree to a outbuilding of marginal value. Sincerely. Steven Crocker and Maria Patino WWI Mwk Mwk EXHIBIT B BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION Draft Minutes April 1, 2021 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order via Zoom at 6:35 pm by Chair Hunt. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunt, Kirchner, Kearney, and Bauer Absent: None Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Glomstad, Parks and Recreation Superintendent/City Arborist Disco and Recording Secretary Borba Others: None MINUTES Commissioner Kearney made a motion to approve the March 4, 2021 minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kirchner and was approved 4-0. CORRESPONDENCE None PUBLIC COMMENT None L93 N W-11I.1-li;l_&51. 1. Update from Chair of the Business Landscape Award and Residential Sustainable Landscape Award Commission Bauer reported she is working on publicity for both awards and stated she created a flyer to post on Next Door, Facebook, eNews, and Instagram. 2. Trees of Burlingame Ad Hoc Committee Members Update Commissioner Kirchner reported he and Commissioner Bauer are putting together an outline of what will be included in the Trees of Burlingame book. It will loosely follow the 1977 version of the book. Commissioner Kirchner requested that the Commissioners develop a list of important trees in Burlingame to be included in the publication. Commissioner Kirchner stated that Jennifer Pfaff with the Burlingame Historical Society would be providing pictures and information for the book. NEW BUSINESS 1. Appeal to the Approved Private Redwood Tree Removal at 717 Crossway Road Chair Hunt recused herself from the appeal hearing. Director Glomstad read the staff report. Commissioner Kearney inquired if the roots were damaging the main structure or just the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Arborist Disco responded that it appeared to be j ust the ADU. Commissioner Kirchner stated the damage to the ADU did not show in 2015 when the permit was denied, and he inquired what had changed since then. Arborist Disco stated the current independent arborist report was accurate. The roots are damaging the structure. Commissioner Kirchner stated there was some mention in the packet that the tree was 200 years old. Arborist Disco stated that he believes the tree is 95-100 years old. Commissioner Bauer asked if the tree had grown significantly since 2015. Arborist Disco confirmed the tree and roots had grown. Public Comment — None Appellant — Steven Crocker stated that the large Redwood tree with a 1.5-meter diameter trunk at breast height is a tall, healthy, beautiful tree and is visible and enjoyed by all in the neighborhood, including many species of wildlife. Mr. Crocker informed the Commission that the original detached garage became a one -bedroom ADU unit, now one foot from the large roots. He stated the tree was protected from removal five and a half years ago when the tree was trimmed. Mr. Crocker stated the property was recently purchased and the roots were causing damage at that time. Mr. Crocker explained the tree is in the prime of its life, is attributing to the beauty of the neighborhood, and a home to wildlife. He stated that it could live for many more years and is irreplaceable in our lifetimes or our children's. Mr. Crocker stated the garage is on a hundred -year -old foundation and at the end of its life expectancy with no historical significance. He stated there is room for the main building, an outbuilding, and the tree on this property and hoped this majestic tree would not be removed at the expense of a 100-year-old building at the end of its life. Mr. Crocker explained Burlingame is a "City of Trees" thanks to the generations before that did not cut down beautiful trees. He stated we should be careful to preserve the irreplaceable while we have it and encouraged the Commissioners to vote to preserve the tree. Respondent -None Commissioner Discussion Commissioner Kearney stated it is a very difficult decision whether to preserve the tree or allow it to come down. However, the roots are damaging the foundation of the building, and that is dangerous. Commissioner Bauer agreed with Commissioner Kearney that it is difficult to approve the removal of a 100-year-old tree, especially when the Commission is here to preserve trees. Commissioner Bauer stated it would have been helpful to hear from the respondent. Commissioner Kirchner stated that he noticed a structural engineer's report was mentioned and it would have been helpful to have the report. Commissioner Kirchner mentioned the tree is causing issues and the cost of repair and litigation is a burden to the property owner. Commissioner Kirchner suggested that the appeal be tabled until next month to see if more information could be brought to the Commissioners by the respondents. Commissioner Kearney and Commissioner Bauer both stated they agreed. Commissioner Kirchner made a motion to table the appeal to the Approved Private Redwood Tree Removal at 717 Crossway Road until the May 2021 meeting to get more information from the respondent on the future plans for the property and the engineer's report. Commissioner Bauer seconded the motion and was approved 3-0-1. REPORTS 1. Director Glomstad Director Glomstad reported in May, the Beautification Commission should have a new Commissioner. Director Glomstad informed the Commission that on Saturday, the Recreation Division would be hosting the annual Egg Hunt and Pancake Breakfast in Washington Park in conjunction with the Lions Club. Director Glomstad stated the Egg Hunt and Pancake Breakfast would be Covid compliant. Director Glomstad updated the Commissioners that the Community Center is moving forward on target and is scheduled for completion in May 2022. Parks Superintendent/City Arborist None 2. Commissioner Hunt None 3. Commissioner Bauer None 4. Commissioner Kirchner None 5. Commissioner Kearney None The next Beautification Commission meeting is May 6, 2021. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:17 pm. Respectfully submitted, Gina Borba Administrative Staff • „�, EXHIBIT C 1. ndstre)rrt C.O. •�- tdtits'erc+tnrat;�-�s%c�lca�a9,r{�r:1843 1.121 S?AyswaterAve. San Mateo, CA 944101 i i i f0 Jim Bar b8/05/2020 717 Crossway Rd. Sewer Burlingame, CA, 94010 717 Crossway Rd, Burlingame rcnnas ; •S•:;;.r ::,:• ESGflIP�lONr: -r: Pr311E-• ,/iME1LJNT_'>;::::::: Services to install 4" polyethylene sewer pipe from foundation wall to ; property line including building clean -out valves (x2) and paitial replacement of second sewer. Includes removing and pouring of , concrete. _...._._..._ ....._ ----_ -._..._.._...._..__._.......__.... - - .._ _ ............ _.....__..___ ............__.-._ __.». .__._ _...__ ... .. _... _.__T._.._ Total due upon completion- Thank you $8500,'00 Thank You CLEANOUTLOCATION: I Facing BuildinU Front Rear Left (Front) Right (Front) SEWER LATERAL TEST BVRLlNGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ADDRESS DATE OWNER LATERAL SIZE: TESTED: DATE BY: MASTER LIST UPDATE CLEANOUT EXIST: NO REPAIR NEEDED COMMENTS AND/ OR SKETCH: BUILDING FILE INSTALLED: AIR/ WATER PASSED: FAILED: WITNESSED BY: CD PARTIAL REPAIR MADE NEW INSTALLATION = RETEST FEE REQUIRED As necessary: Building Permit # — Encroachment Permit # 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 { t SURt1NCTAME � CITY 4F BURLiNGAME BUILDING PERMIT PERMIT NO. P20-0088 .- DATE 713.112020 _.._. _._._..., NUMBER = 717 CROSSWAY ROAD - ASSESSOR 029045110__ APPLiCAry i PHONE STREET ADORES`; LINDSTROM COMPANY (650) 343-4542 k 1121 BAYSYVATER AVE CITY STATE ZIP SAN MATEO. _ _ _ .- . S.A _94401 NAME OF OWNER PHONE ---.__.____ ___.BARRY.JIM R TR (650) 766-6654 CONTRACTOR PHONE ADDRESS LINDSTROM COMPANY 650 343-4542 ( ) CITY 1121 BAYSWATER AVE STATE 7.IP SAN MATED —..-_.. _ CA __ __.__9_4401_-______ ARCHITECT LICENSE ADDRESS' CITY ST Zip ENGINEER LICENSE ADDRESS: CITY ST ZIP WORK DESCRIPTION- SEWER LATERAL+ CLEAN OUT PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING: VALUATION 7,000.00 PERMIT FEES For making all inspection requests. A minimum 24 hours advance notice Is required. I BUILDING 47.00 It /s suggested that you do not expose your project to the elements until you have secured your 1 ELECTRICAL Inspection date. I PLUMBING 0.00 Pfeas s remember this may nol guprantoe you next day inspection. laspecWns are on a first call basis and 1 71.00 MECHANICAL rtr.?rosrcauite; rrurnberofinspeci�bnsfrillvcaated(oreach day. 0.00 !MICRIiFILM i SEISMIC 5.00 Work for requested inspection shall be COMPLETED by 9:00 AM on the morning of the I OTHER 0.91 inspection date. Due to staffing availability, specific Inspection times are not provided. 0.55 Work. not completed at the time of inspection will be assessed a rolnspection tee. 1 Inspections are done Monday thru Friday 9 a.m. to noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. TOTAL 124.46 Ensure access to the job site. NOTE: THIS PERMIT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY Asafe, 3d watherAccesspathismgwred Access through mud orstlpperyterrain isnot acceptable. CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT III OF WAY. ANY CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA Ensure that the job site is maintained in a safe condition and that all OSHA regulations ( REQUIRES A SEPARATE PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT, are adhered to. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLATION Norel_m invoctions Mllbe conducted at an unsafelob site, OF THE FOLLOWING PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Maintain all erosion control methods as required by City Code Chapter 15.14 (Grading). Illuminated Street Address at front of building: Requires StwaieaterPoRutra7Prevention Program lControimethods;. visibility and legibility per BMC 18,08.010 Ensure that your representative (an adult) Is at the job site to provide assistance and answer any questions regarding the project for ALL Inspections. EXPIRATION DATE 07/31/2021 Maintain all construction documents (approved plans, permit card) in a legible condition and ensure that they are at the job site for Inspections. E DATE ISSUED 07/3 ti"2020 Provide any and all equipment (ladders, lights, etc.) necessary to complete the inspection. PERMIT NUMBER P20-QO$8 Installation instructions must be on site for rough and final inspections. l Wnen the valuation of an addition, alteration or repair to a Group R Ocupancy exceeds INSPECTION REQUEST al, 000 smoke detectors shall be installed. (650) 558-7260 INSPECTION RECORD FOUNDATIONS I DATE IiNSPECTQR� RQUGHS ^7 GATE IINSPECTORIWALLAPPLICATfONS [ DATE [INSPECTOR _ 'tee.. prnis Wood rraml ( ire-Raietf Drywall Slab L ht G2 e S eet Framing aGauge— Flashing i SKfmg_ _ Ancha.- Bolts 5trurturat Stsei . _ ...... _ Exterior Lath Pters Rough Electrical T Bar Ceilings Electrical Ground Rour;h Plumbina Insulation FOUNDATION SURVEY Rough Mechariica•. W.3ter Proofing POUR NO CONCRETE UNTIL ABOVE HAS Green Sui!ding BEEN SIGNED-- 'ROOFING (,OVER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE HAS ' UNDERGROUND BEEN SIGNED Roof Shealhinq 1 Deck } Electrical Conduit ELECTRICAL In-Praoress I'inal Water Piping sewer Lateral POOL I SPA t Gas Pipits$ Temp Power Pale Pre-Gunde E3a �tti�atgr Vale e w1ring ! Conduct Bernm er Requireents Site Drainage Phatcvo to : Pre Deck FOUNDATION SURVEY MUST BE RECEIVE PLUMBING iF1RE DEPARTMENT I I I PRIOR TO UNDERFLOOR INSPECTION Water t'rrn, rim S.rinkier -- Rough ( � UNDERFLOOR^i [train,' nst�. and Vent i Framing Gas Fire Damper • Tese fff E,e �r _<, I he Pr Pan i Plumbing - Gas Test ME i LR RELEASE Mechanics Lli.c!s I I1 F cc r ::3i lag # _.. Building SPINer . � MECHANICAL Insulation Furnace i COVER NO WORK UNTIL ABOVE HAS BEEN Air Cotrc , a I FINALS 1 SIGNED Dl ' . 1 # E gini2vr.ng Department I RIDGE tiEtGHTSIlRYEY Hood i Far j Water Dt:r,2 ."Ient { AROVEMUSTSERECENSDSEFOREROOFPLYINSP Fire Damper j SHEAR 'WALLS 1 +! AhoveT-Bar Grid jI Goun!y Health Dr-partrrmttnr } Rao` Ply! Diaphragm j i Insulation ! City Arbonst Exxteror Shear I! 1 water Healer Planning Department MfSC E ! t AME7L15 I F r DeP �'ltrat 1 i In+e or ,h�'a� ( c ,�, E ess �/�� /� }` A t.'tt'r ct?�tE: , } n •ti ��SE.Ct �rS I �S//'� t- "✓ �B,,i ingOepartrnenx �(�lL fir` 13:N 10tnC� t I.. _ ABOVE MUST BE SIGNEC PRIOR TO A CALL FOR FRAMING INSP. I t:� u , Str'Eei Address i _ � �'�; t,,( �-t F1NA1. JOS COMPLETE p"V S ICA9R(1N-MDNn1IQE Al ARMS RFO TIRED CRC R115 EXHIBIT D Foundation Evaluation 10/23/2020 Client: owner phone(929) 330 7365 Evaluating Engineer: Lei Zheng phone: (626)2983967 Address: 717 Crossway Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Disclaimer: The professional opinions offered are based on visual observations of apparent conditions existing at the time of inspection. Latent and concealed defects and deficiencies are excluded. Destructive testing, subsurface investigation, structural calculations and seismic analysis as well as preparation of design drawings detailing any recommended repairs or improvements are beyond the scope of the services provided. An independent Geotechnical Engineer and/or geologist should be retained if a complete geotechnical investigation is desired. Owner/Agent/Buyer is granted a single use of this report for one transaction and agrees that this report is not intended for use in any legal action without written consent from Lei Zheng 1 1 P a a e Summary: Serious foundation settlement was observed, serious crack on wall is found, the crawlspace has a high moisture level. Repairing are advised. Crawl space door is too small for access. Findings. This foundation is comprised of a conventional cast -in -place concrete perimeter footing with Concrete stem walls for the main residential structure, back house foundation is made of slab concrete on grade. Crack on the foundation Crack on the chimney Downspout discharge local to foundation also negative elevation guide water into foundation, need to be repaired. 2 1 P a a e tD Following photos are patched wall with special lighting some of the crack is till visible. Along the outside perimeter of the house, movement of foundation is noticable at some corner. Inside wall crack has been repaired, unusual seam between ceiling and wall on visible on all the bedroom. 3 1 Pciae Crack on the wall Crack on the wall Crack on the wall Crack on the wall Crack on the ceiling 41 Page There is evidence that the foundation of this building has experienced differential settlement that is considered more than normal. As a result of differential settlement, some structural deflections have occurred in the structure of the building. Based on out - of -levelness of the foundation, repair is recommended. Due to the large tree growing in the front and back yard the probability it impact the building's foundation, the installation of root barriers between the tree and the building is recommended. Items that we find that in our opinion are in need of repair will typically include the recommendation to Obtain a Cost Estimate from qualified contractors. The scope and cost of the actual repairs can vary significantly from company to company, and it is your responsibility to see that the scope of work needed and actual cost of repairs is confirmed by contacting one or more qualified service companies before your option period 51Page REPAIR RECOMMENDED Most of the structures have experienced some degree of differential foundation movement, and this structure was no exception. After careful examination, it is our opinion that the degree of the foundation movement is more than what is acceptable. The most significant movement was located at west side of the house where the chimney located. Due to the more than acceptable amount of movement of the foundation of this structure, it is our opinion that lifting of the foundation is needed. It is recommended that at least three foundation repair contractors be contacted in order that they may make their own assessment of the scope and cost of the work needed to bring this foundation back to an acceptable degree of levelness. Obtain Cost Estimate Floor Elevation Survey. The floor elevation was checked through with a laser level to compare the floor elevation for flatness (SeeAttachment #1 Floor Elevation Survey). This is important to check because in some situation floors can settle due to varying causes, usually stemming from soil settlements in parts or entirely throughout foundations. These measured floor diaphragms were way outside the allowable tolerance of +/- 1" of vertical displacement to every 20' of lateral distance in the structure. This is most likely due to marginal construction practices adopted during original construction along with seasonal soil movement over several decades. Back House: east corner of the back -house foundation has been impacted by the presence of the tree roots. The elevation is 2 in higher than the low point of the room. Preventive measurement is suggested to stabilized the situation. Other Issues The evidences of differential movement of the foundation are observed. It is pointed out that, due to the subjective nature of interpretation of the evidences of foundation movement, it is possible for other professionals to have a differing opinion. This report is provided for the use of the person to whom this report is addressed, and is in no way intended to be used by a third party, who may have different requirements. It is our purpose to provide information on the condition of the foundation on the day of the inspection, and not to provide discussions or recommendations concerning the future maintenance of the foundation. Items that we find that in our opinion are in need of repair will typically include the recommendation to Obtain a Cost Estimate. The scope and cost of the actual repairs can vary significantly from company to company, and it is your 6 1 P a a e responsibility to see that the scope of work needed and actual cost of repairs is confirmed by one or more qualified service companies. Consideration should be given on capping the roots between the trees and the building; if capping is not practical, foundation will be further damaged if the root continue to grow closer and under the building than their current stage. If the roots are to be cut and capped, then a qualified tree expert should be employed to determine where the roots should be cut, since cutting too much may be hazardous to the health of the tree and endanger the house. Drainage at the perimeter of the foundation, which can have an negative effect on the rate of differential settlement in a building foundation. The grading of the soil should be maintained so that water does not stand or run alongside the foundation during or immediately after rains. On the left side of the house, negative elevation will guide the water into foundation. Suggest: 1. Repair the foundation. 2. decrease the humidity of crawlspace. 3. Repair crack outside and inside house. 4. Improve negative drainage towards house. 5. The tree roots should be limited to protect the foundation of the house. Maintenance: It is recommended to implement a standard maintenance program as follows: 1. Keep rain gutters, downspouts and drain lines clean and directed away from foundation to lower areas in front of site. 2. Monitor foundation & Sub floor condition for changes every 2-3 years, by a qualified professional. 3. Maintain proper function of existing interior and exterior drain and plumbing lines, monitor annually for functionality. If owner choose to do nothing to change/modify/upgrade the floor elevations and support framing of the noted sloped areas. The owner can live with the current sloping condition. Owner are recommended to continuously monitor the foundation in the future and address these issues at a future time. Two repair options are suggested to homeowner: 71 P a a e Option I — minor repair: This option involves lifting and re -levelling the floor frame/support framing at the sloped areas and bring them back as close to level as possible. The gap in the framing will be grouted or shimmed using structural shims, non- shrink grout and related hardware. This option typically resets the time clock which translates to only bringing the floors back to level. The settlement or movement of foundation in the future, will not be addressed by this option. If chosen, the cost of this repair will be in the range of +/- $20,000 to $30,000. Option II — Underpin Foundation: This option involves setting the foundation on top of a deep foundation such as helical anchors or drilled concrete piers. This option will prevent future settlement of the foundation since the deep foundation will rest on a hard bearing deposit. This option is more expensive compared to the other options. A proposal for the same has been provided. If chosen, the cost of this repair will be in the range of +/- $100,000 to $125,000. Note: (a) If the option I or II is chosen, owner/buyer is recommended to maintain +/- 10% of total project cost as contingency funds to repair expected cracking of doors, windows and interior walls during lifting and unforeseen conditions during repair. Summary: The foundation and floor framing were in overall acceptable and continued service providing condition except for the observations and recommendations mentioned in this report, which we recommend the repairs recommended and the exploratory work done to the rear of the foundation to identify the issues with the rotating/bulging foundation in that area. Normal soil movement should be anticipated, and excessive movement must be inspected. It is recommended to carry -out the repairs mentioned in this report, implement long-term drainage maintenance and monitor the foundation per the recommendations in this report. Lei Zheng Professional civil Engineer of California MSCE 81Paae Disclaimer. This inspection report has been developed and prepared to address observations, site conditions and evaluations relating to professional construction standards at the time of construction for this type of structure. Current Building Code (2019 California Building Code/2018 International Code Counsel) has been revised from the time of original construction, and is only used as a basis of knowledge, not as a comparison. This inspection report is contingent only on what was visible at the time of inspection, and excludes any hidden, latent or other defects/situations which were undetectable to the naked eye during inspection. Lei Zheng Inc. assumes no liability for all unforeseen problems. This report should not be construed as a warranty of any kind, express or implied. 91Page Attachment #1: Floor Elevation Survey •-010" 0II y • 11 +-00 1745„,1 1 f 1to.05:. " , .40„ 0.0.25-0.o 25• -0" 15• 0.75" -.10.1.400'�0" 0 +/-0,0"ref4 Ln ro "i" Da 0.40" BR BR n L • +0.25" +0.75" -1 of n I rD 0 -- -, B R ul 0.40"-0.10" +0.15" +0 �C " fD �O7�4.25- +0 75" 15/ • 'ref *+0.50" O.D '15'' - 0 +/-0.00"ref3 • +/-0.00"ref6 BA repaired -0.50" +0.50" closet +/-0.00"ref2 -0.501, ° +/-0.00" Kitchen ; .50"tf7 5" -1.00' -056BR +/-0.00" -0.60"+/-0.00" ® +/-0. 0" -Moll -1-00,. ®-0.50' +0.50" 50„ -0.75" . -1.00"-1.00" A a -1.00" -1.50" . -2.50" -0.50" -0.30" Dining room -030" . o -1.75" -0.50" +/-0.00"ref1 . chimmey +/-0.00" Living room -0.a75" -0.50"-1.2501' 01.501, -1.75" KEYNOTE LEGEND: D1 = LACK OF RAIN GUTTER E, = STUCCO CRACK F1 = SLOPING FLOOR I, = WALL CRACK I GAP R1= CRACKING NOISE D2 = POOR PERFORMING RAIN GUTTER E2 = WOOD SIDING GAP F2 = BASE BOARD GAP 12 = CEILING CRACK I GAP R2 = NAIL I SCREW POPPING D3 = DOWNSPOUT DISCHARGE LOCAL TO FDN E3 = BRICK VENEER GAP F3 = FLOORING CRACKIGAP 13 = MISALIGNED DOOR R3 = SHARDS FRAMING 04 = NEGATIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS HOUSE E4 = SLAB I PAVEMENT CRACK F4 = SLAB CRACK 14 = MISALIGNED WINDOW R4 = CRACK AT FRAMING 05 = OVER -IRRIGATION E5 = SLAB I PAVEMENT GAP F5 = SLAB GAP 15 = NAIL I SCREW POPPING R5 = GAP AT FRAMING D6 = BATHTUB SCENARIO DURING RAIN EVENT E6 = HORIZ CRACK IN SLABIFDN 16 = MISALIGNED FINISH WORK E7 = VERT CRACK IN SLABIFDN 101 P a g KEYNOTE LEGEND: Dl = LACK OF RAIN GUTTER D2 = POOR PERFORMING RAIN GUTTER D3 = DOWNSPOUT DISCHARGE LOCAL TO FDN D4 = NEGATIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS HOUSE D5 = OVER -IRRIGATION D6 = BATHTUB SCENARIO DURING RAIN EVENT E1 = STUCCO CRACK E2 = WOOD SIDING GAP E3 = BRICK VENEER GAP E4 = SLAB I PAVEMENT CRACK E5 = SLAB I PAVEMENT GAP E6 = HORIZ CRACK IN SLABIFDN E7 = VERT CRACK IN SLABIFDN F1= SLOPING FLOOR F2 = BASE BOARD GAP F3 = FLOORING CRACKIGAP F4 = SLAB CRACK F5 = SLAB GAP Tree I = WALL CRACK/ GAP 12 = CEILING CRACK I GAP 13 = MISALIGNED DOOR 14 = MISALIGNED WINDOW 15 = NAIL I SCREW POPPING 16 = MISALIGNED FINISH WORK R1 = CRACKING NOISE R2 = NAIL I SCREW POPPING R3 = SHARDS FRAMING R4 = CRACK AT FRAMING R5 = GAP AT FRAMING 11 1 P a g LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations stated in this report are based on a visual survey of the structure. Deficiencies which were not apparent at the time of this survey are not included in this report. This survey is limited to the foundation area. This report is designed to give a general status of the structure's foundation system. You have not requested or authorized any destructive testing, subsurface investigation, structural calculations or seismic analysis and you have not provided Lei Zheng with a geotechnical report. It in no way precludes the possibility of hidden damage nor guarantees that additional damage may not occur following the survey. INITIAL ASSESSMENT REPORT ONLY This report is intended to be used for information purposes only. The information presented should not be used by others to make repair recommendations or as construction documents. The recommendations presented in this report are intended to give general direction for repairs. Complete repair detail will be specified as a part of the construction documents. AREA THIS REPORT IS LIMITED TO This report is limited to the substructure only. No investigation was made as to the structural integrity (specifically the seismic stability) of the superstructure section of the residence. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY In using this report Owner/Agent agrees that the liability of Lei Zheng, its officers, agents, employees, affiliates, used on this inspection and to the extent such liability arises from professional acts, errors and/or omissions, shall be limited in the aggregate to a sum that is no greater than the total fee for services rendered on this inspection. 12 1 P a a