The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1537 Drake Avenue Lot 9 - Technical Study� _. 11�1 �l�y��e rl,ree �+:xp�rt Company, Inc. icsrnn� �.:tu.n i��3i ti rn•ri . c:r �ry rr.;�c� rcni's i_tci:Nsr: rv<�. 2`x,?�� i�.i,�rirn�i � ti��i�i.ti�i�i�.i. • ��i�.iz�i�iri��.i> nitticxz�s�r'�; • ri:s�r c��N:rit�ii. - nr>visr.>r�ti �Nn ��>r��iz,�•r��ci,�; i:ic ii �i:u i_ ini��rit�c��t��N ri;r;inry i II(Rt��11(l" IN( �;\I.i � i �i.i.tii�i tn�<ivi•ti'iin�:�i��i< April 24, 2009 s�; t3rinc�n�rr> izc�nr�. s`ri�.. ,� snN cnat.��.�. <�n �,ao7n-�;�2r; ��:I.1il'liON1=.: I(�Sf)15(13 ��1U(1 1� 1('SlNlll.f�.: (liSf)i i9Z-411'1 � [�.N1All.: infnGani:iyn�trec.curu Mr. Steven I'orter City Arborist City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. P��rter, RE.: 1537 DRAKF AVF., BURI_INGAME ,; � ; . 1:.. , 1`Ei'�� '.'.. i_O()') ,, i , „ � �,�� . . . � I ha�e obs�rved the site and construction is to the paint where normal construction impacts ta the redwoods will not occur. Utility tret�ching along the south side of the property h�is been completed as proposed. This has not impacted the redwoods. The protertive fencing is now in the way of completing proposed landscaping, etc. I, therefore, recommend that the fencing be removed so the project can be completed. Please call with any questions. Sincerely, , //� �'rJp1�} .yj % � / . ��i, � 7�,rlr/ �{'��lj��/ � / 1 "�.,.F/ _L:J1� � Richard L. H�antington ��c�E� oF Certified A',rborist WE #0119A Cerkified F orester #1925 RLH:pmd cc: Otto Nliller Rubin Ht.arin /,`��rPQ.e`� 4 HUN j�'f'Go�� Z` � G qc o-o- y �` � No. wE-a» sn � � * � � �FRr�F�ro r•.��e��`;�✓'. ;, ., J�� Walter L i n �c . ev so �� CONSULTING ARBORIST ��•�^- ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 1537 Drake Burlingame, California � Prepared at the Request of: Steve Porter, City Arborist City of Burlingame, California Site Visit: Walter Levison 3/1 /04 Report: Walter Levison 3/8/04 1 of 13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2/ Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists � c 1�� ) 1 r Wa te Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA A S �� . Arborist #401 Root Probe Summary 3 Analysis and Discussion 3 Conclusion 5 Tenfative Recommendations: Compromise Scenario 6 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 12 Certi�cation 13 Aftachments: 2of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 13 3/8/04 Z Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intematlonal Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Soaety of Consutting Arborists ;� 1� ) Walter Levison '��-�� CONSULTINU' ARBORIST ��^�^ , ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 Root Probe Summary 1. Mr. Richard Huntington performed root probing on 3-1-04 at the site at 1537 Drake, Burlingame. The device used to probe for woody roots outside the redwood grove's existing tree protection fence perimeter was a metal rod approximately '/2-inch in diameter fitted with a blunt head. This rod is built into a metal housing which is manually pounded. The rod penetrates down to about 45-inches depth, stopping abruptly when it encounters a woody root. 2. Root probes were perFormed at proposed pier locations (see map for approximations of locations #1 through #10) where 12-inch diameter foundation piers are proposed to be installed. Digital photographs of root probing at each location were archived by the author. 3. The root probe encountered woody roots at locations #8, #9 and #10 (see attached map). The root at location #8 was approximately 4-inches or greater in diameter, and only 3-inches below existing grade level. The roots at locations #9 and #10 were not visible (diameters unknown). 4. All the roots encountered during root probing appeared to be growing in deflected/abnormal directions different from typical radial growth which radiates out from tree . trunks. Two proposed piers at locations #8 and #9 would need to be relocated southward to avoid damaging woody roots encountered during root probing. 5. The woody root encountered at location #10 was approximately 9-inches west of pier center. The width of this root may be only 1-2 inches in diameter, as subsequent probes only 1-inch from the initial probe penetrated to 45-inches depth without encountering any further resistance. Analysis and Discussion With the exception of pier locations #8 and #9, the root probing performed today seems to indicate that piers could theoretically be installed as proposed without excessive damage to the large-diameter roots. However, we must note that the importance of retaining a large portion of the fine non-woodv absorbing root system of the redwood grove is at least equal to that of the woody root system. The root probing performed at this site only revealed to us that there were few large diameter woody roots in the proposed pier installafion locations. Yet we encountered smaller diameter roots growing as a shallow root mass in great density between zero to 12-inches below grade outside the dripline radius during the Airspade exploratory excavation on 1-28- 04. Thus, the issue remains the same: what linear radial distance of the existing redwood grove root system should we be preserving behind chain link fencing? I have provided a number of tree protection fencing distance calculations based on various different protocols in the table below. Fencing distances are noted as linear radial feet from trunk edges for the 1537 Drake coast redwood specimens. Trunk diameter 3of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations - 3/8/04 2� Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture 8 Registered Member, American Soaety of Consulting Arborists s J ) Walter Levison L�.��-�-� CONSULTING ARBORIST �^"�"�*�^�", ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 measurements used in these calculations were those obtained by the author in 2003 using a forester's D-tape at 54-inches above average grade. Specimen Most Conservative Tree Protection Fence Least Conservative Tree Protection Fence Tree Location Protocots ft. from trunk ed es Location Protocols ft. from trunk ed es Matheny (1998) Expanded fenceline Existing Optimal Tree distances as per _ fence Preservation author's Mayne Tree Experts distances Zone (TPZ) for comprehensive report Co. system from from Coder (1996) Too� #3: fencing (assume dated 2/20/04. (Used �Mitiga6ng Measures redwood Critical Rooting 0.75-ft X trunk Matheny's 0.50-ft X for Construction trunk Distance (for tree dia. inches). trunk dia. inches, and Impacts on Existing edges at fencing erection) Based on specific then modified. A Trees" (5-inches X 1537 species' single average trunk �nk dia. inches) Drake site tolerance of diameter was used, as of construction rather than individual 3/1/04 pressure. diameters) Tree #1 69-75 43 20 24 . 8 Tree #2 63 39 25 21 9-10 Tree #3 45 27 25 15 9 Tree #4 44 26 25 14 9-12 The table above clearly shows that the existing chain link tree protection fencing distances (in the right hand column) are not adequate when measured up against tree preservation/protection zone fence distance calculation formulas used in the Bay Area and throughout North America. The following root loss calculations further expand upon the above information: a) Minimum rooting distance of trees of the same diameter as coast redwoods at 1537 Drake = 2.5 X the dripline radius (Mattheck et. a1.,1993) = 30-ft to 45-ft radial distance from trunk edges of the redwoods at this site. b) Calculation of minimum remaining redwood grove rooting area after 2003 excavation: +- 5400 sq. ft. c) Root Loss and/or above ground pruning totaling 30% or more of the existing biomass is considered "severe". Therefore, 30% is considered the threshol�+ for se�ere I�i�ma�s !oss- d) Loss of redwood grove root system given current fencing Iocations=1550sq.ft. retained/5400sq.ft total.= 29% root system retained. 71 % root loss (assuming all soil and roots outside fenceline to be damaged due to compaction and subsequent loss of respiration activity). This percentage of root loss is more than twice the 30% threshold level of root loss considered severe. Therefore, potential root loss given the existing fencing locations could be "extremely severe". If woodchip soil buffers are maintained around the perimeter of the expanded tree protection fenceline, then the total root loss would be somewhat mitigated (but still well over the 30% threshold level considered "severe"). 4of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2l Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists I�� Walter Levison �A� �� CONSULTING ARBORIST �-��^��^-�� , ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 e) _ Loss of root system under author's proposed expanded fencing locations in comprehensive report dated 2/20/04 =3500sq.ft. retained/5400sq.ft. total= 65% root system retained. 35% root loss (assuming all soil and roots outside fenceline to be damaged due to compaction and subsequent loss of respiration activity). This percentage of root loss is still considered "severe", but allows for a much greater rooting area to be preserved, mulched, composted, and regularly irrigated with less than significant impacts behind hard fencing. If woodchip soil buffers are maintained around the perimeter of the expanded tree protection fenceline, then the total root loss will be brought down to well below the 30°/a threshold level. �Coder (1996) Tool #8: Structural Critical Rooting Distance to Minimize Catastrophic Tree Failure= 12-ft for trees #1 and #2. 10-feet for trees #3 and #4. Current fencing at trees #1 and #2 are below this minimum. Coder notes that "significant risk of catastrophic tree failure exists if structural roots within this given radius are destroyed or severely damaged." Soil compaction and root loss can be somewhat mitigated through use of "soil buffers" consisting of thick wood chip layers overlain by full plywood sheets affixed together. Use of tree root protection measures does not guarantee that construction in areas overlain by soil buffers will have "no significant impact" on the redwood root systems. There is no way to guarantee that a given root zone area will be free of all construction-related tree impacts unless the area is fenced off with full perimeters of steel chain link fencing and monitored constantly by an independent outside party. The author's comprehensive report dated 2/20/04 recommends extending fencing out to approximately 20-25-feet from the trunk edges of the redwood specimens at this site in order to create an area free of significant construction-related impacts. The report also recommends creating an addition soil buffer zone of 5-6 linear feet for a total of approximately 30-linear feet to be included as part of a tree protection zone or "TPZ". The current site plan foundation footprints for lots 9 and 10 conflict with this 30-ft TPZ. Therefore, either very stringent tree protection mitigation measures will be required to be adopted as conditions of approval for these lots, or the site plan for lots 9 and 10 will need to be completely revised. Conclusian The redwood grove at 1537 Drake has a shallow root mass of mainly smaller diameter roots which radiates out in all directions from the tree trunks well past the driplines of the trees. Given the table in the 'analysis and discussion' section above, we can see that using standard protocols for determining tree protection fence distances results in much greater distances from trunk edges than the chain link panel fence currently installed at the site. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that the root loss associated with the current proposed site plan and current tree protection fencing locations would be severe unless serious mitigation measures were strictly adhered to throughout the entire construction process. 5of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2� Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists A 1� ) Walter Levison '��-�.5� CONSULTING ARBORIST ""��'�""`^�", ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 Redesign of the foundation footprints on lots 9 and 10 as per my comprehensive report dated 2/20/04 wouid be the most prudent and cautious approach in terms of real preservation of the redwood grove and its root system in its current state of health and structure. Construction under this approach would have the least possible impact on the trees. The tree protection recommendations for this "best approach" are listed in detail in the `recommendations' section of the comprehensive report dated 2/20/04. Under a"compromise scenario", the foundation footprints proposed for lots 9 and 10 would be constructed at approximately current locations while maintaining a very stringent set of tree protection mitigation measures to be included in the final planning department "conditions of approval" for the 1537 Drake site. The compromise scenario conditions of approval would need to include use of alternative tree-friendly construction methods and materials such as helical anchors instead of traditional drilled piers, and use of a"biaxial geogrid" system such as Tensar BX-1200 to eliminate all grading and compaction associated with the proposed driveway. The main difference befinreen the "best approach" and the "compromise scenario" is that the best approach involves a hard TPZ chain link fenceline at 20-25 linear feet from trunk edges to provide complete protection to that distance, plus a soil buffer of an additional 5-6 linear feet. The compromise scenario, on the other hand, would use the existing chain link TPZ at 8-12 linear feet from trunk edges to provide minimal hard protection, plus a soil buffer of an additional 18-22 li�ear feet (see attached maps). If this extensive .soil buffer were to be compromised in any way during the construction process, then soil compaction and root loss could be expected. In my opinion, the compromise scenario may result in decline in the health and/or structure of one or more of the trees in the redwood grove. This decline might not be noticeable until years after the completion of project construction. Staff will need to determine which of the above two tree protection protocols will be implemented at this site. Tentative Recommendations: Compromise Scenario If staff determines that the compromise scenario will be implemented at the site, then the following tentative set of mitigation measures is recommended to be included in the final planning department conditions of approval (subject to staff revision): Lots 9 and 10 / Immediate 1. TREE PROTECTION FENCING: Maintain the existing chain link fence at current locations. Pound 24-36 inch long "layout stakes" into ground at current fence perimeter, one stake per every 6-linear feet. Affix steel wire to fence base and through hole in layout stakes to prevent movement or alteration of the existing chain link fencing panels. The protective fencing must not be temporarily altered, moved, or removed during construction. No materials, excavated soil, liquids, or substances are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within the perimeter of this fence. The 6of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Fndings and Recommendations 3/8/04 ?J Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Soaety of Art>oriculture & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists �� ) Walter Levison �-�� CONSULTING ARBORfST �^� ' ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 fencing shall remain in place until final occupancy/signoff of all construction and related activity on lots 9 and 10. Affix at least five (4) of the following laminated waterproof signs on the fence at eye level using zipties, minimum sign size 8"X11", stating: TREE PROTECTION FENCE DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE CALL WALTER LEVISON (650) 697-0990 2. FENCING ADDITIONS: a. SILT FENCING: affix 400 Terrafix or equivalent professional grade silt fencing to the lower portion (between zero and 24-inches above grade) of the outside of the accessible chain link perimeter using UV resistant zipties. Ziptie the bottom edge of the silt fence so that the material is held firmly in place on the chain link fence. b. ORANGE FENCING: Affix oranQe plastic snow fencinq around the chain link perimeter to enhance visibility of the barrier. c. DOOR: Create a door in the chain link TPZ fencing onto which arborists can affix a chain and combination lock for access to the TPZ to assess mulch, soil moisture, and other field conditions as necessary throughout the entire construction project. The door will also allow for wood chip and compost materials to be brought in to the TPZ by contractors under the supervision of the arborists. d. HATCHED AREA/ROOT PROTRUSION: the hatched area with root protrusion noted on the attached marked up fence location map is an undisturbed soil rooting zone. This zone shall be completely fenced off with chain link fencing as per the map. No construction (i.e. driveway construction, utility trenching) shall occur here until all other phases of the project are completed. Access to lot 9 from the street will NOT be available. Lot 9 shall be accessed from lot 10 only until utilitv trenchin4 and drivewav construction occur at the final stage of the project (note that daily arborist direct supervision will be required for these two items). 3. MULCH/COMPOST: Lay a two to three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip (not bark) mulch over the entire soil surface within the existing chain link fenced area and within the new fenced off "hatched area". Pull out chips approximately 12- inches from the trunks of the redwood trees such that chips are not directly contacting the trunks. Lay a two-inch layer of well aged organic compost over the chips, keeping compost materials at least 24-inches away from the trunks of the redwoods. 4. IRRIGATION (starting late spring/ early summer, 2004) Setup a supplemental irrigation system of garden soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib , snaked throughout the entire tree protection fence perimeter (min. 250-ft length of soaker hose). Irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction project(s) except after significant winter/spring rains (to be 7 of 13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2J Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists I 1��) alt r Levison �s� W e �:,� CONSULTING ARBORIST ��^�- , ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 determined by arborists). Soak overniqht, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated. Note on Irrigation Volume: Barrie Coate Consulting Arborist recommends that coast redwoods be supplied with 20-gallons of irrigation water per inch of trunk diameter per month: this would be approximately 4,000 gallons per month for the grove at this site. Proiect arborist(s) will test soil usinq a 36-inch lon4 Lincoln moisture meter probe or equivalent at least twice monthly to confirm that soil moisture is maintained at approximately 90-100% field capacity throuqhout the entire tree protection fence area. 5. PRUNING: Do not perForm any further pruning on redwoods #1 through #4. Do not prune any of the existing lignotuber sprouts. 6. LEVELING THE EXISTING GRADE: If necessary, grade un�ulations on the existing site on lots 9 and 10 shall be leveled by hand only using shovels, rakes, wheelbarrows, etc. Machinery will not be allowed to perForm grading within the 30- foot radius TPZ. This activity will need to be performed before installation of the soil buffers, and must therefore be directly monitored the project arborist and/or city arborist or his assistant during the entire operation. 7. TREE PROTECTION ZONE SOIL BUFFER: All soil area between the existing chain link tree protection fenceline and out to 30-feet from the trunk edges of trees #1 through #4 shall be provided with soil buffers consisting of non-woven plastic qeotextile (professional enqineerinQ filter fabric) lain over existing grade, overlain by 10-inches thickness of course wood chips, overlain by gravel as a stabilizing agent (if required), overlain by full sheets of 1.25-inch minimum thickness plywood affixed together by screw plates or by overlapping/screws. This zone shall be known as the tree protection zone or "TPZ" where no impacts shall be allowed to occur in terms of further soil compaction or grade changes. No construction activity of any kind (other than hand-leveling of existing grade as noted above) shall commence before the TPZ soil buffer is completely installed on site. If the soil buffers are required to be moved for any reason such as during installation of the grade beams or concrete "rat proofing" over grade, then the project arborist and/or city arborist or his assistant shall be present during the entire operation. Installation of the Soil Buffer: Install the soil buffer by driving a truck to outside the TPZ, maintaining at least 30-ft distance between redwood trees and chip truck. Dump chips out of truck onto soil, and manually wheelbarrow the chips around to create the soil buffer over the geotextile layer. 8. SOIL COMPACTION TESTING (by author): Follow-up soil compaction testing shall be performed in spring or summer 2004 to confirm initial results from 2/04. Bulk density shall be determined by sending soil samples off for simple lab analysis at a Bay Area lab. Lots 9 and 10 / Non-immediate 9. FOUNDATION METHODS & MATERIALS: 8 of 13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2/ Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists A ,1� � Walter Levison �� CONSULTING ARBORIST ��^� , ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 Utilize only a helical anchor system (call Pacific Helix in south bay for specs (408) 379-6297) and over-grade beam system to provide foundation support without the use of heavy machinery or below-grade trenching. The helical anchor system (Chance Co. specified anchors) requires only very light weight equipment to install the screw-like piers that become the entire subgrade support for the foundation. The screws are "no-dig" in that they are screwed into the ground with no drilling or preparation necessary, minimizing root loss. See information sheet attached. Traditional pier excavation shall not be allowed. a. Relocate piers at locations #8 and #9 to avoid woody roots encountered during the initial root probing at those locations. b. Grade beam must be a true "over grade" or "above grade" beam which is poured over existing grade with no further compaction to the existing soil and zero excavation within 30-feet of redwoods #1 through #4. c. Concrete pump trucks and similar heavv equipment will be prohibited from enterinq the site due to soil compaction concerns. Concrete shall be pumped in from off-site (see "staqinQ areas"1. d. Lime Stabilization: Lime shall be prohibited from use as a stabilizer for any soil area within 50-feet of the trunk of any redwood tree being retained. e. Move soil buffer chips/plywood/geotextile only under direct arborist supervision. 10. MACHINERY SIZE LIMITS: In order to minimize soil compaction from construction- related travel, the maximum size of machinery allowed on site shall be kept to mini- bobcat or equivalent. Arborist(s) shall directly supervise all vehicle/machinery travel which shall be restricted to outside the 30-radial foot limit (outside the TPZ). For special circumstances, small scale machinery may be used within the TPZ (example: helical anchor installation) under direct arborist supervision only. Use of any and all machinery shall be limited to periods of dry weather only, to minimize soil compaction (see "construction phasing"). 11. GRADiNG: No grading shafi occu� within 4he TFZ (30-feet from trunk edges af redwoods). Grading outside the TPZ shall utilize only small scale equipment as per above, and shall be supervised by the arborist(s). 12. DRIVEWAY DESIGN/GENERAL: The Lot 9 driveway shall consist of: (for example) Tensar BX-1200 biaxial geogrid or equivalent lain over existin4 uncompacted grade, overlain by base rock (gravel, etc.) overlain by a second layer of biaxial geogrid, overlain by baserock and the driveway surfacing (A/C, etc.). Utilize header boards to contain the edges of the driveway. The final design specifications shall be determined by the project engineer and approved by the city arborist. 13. CONSTRUCTION PHASING: No construction of any kind shall occur on lots 9 or 10 except during the dry season (example: July through November) to avoid undue soil compaction. 9of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2J Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Soaety of Consulting Arborists 1�� Walter Levison �A� �� CONSULTING ARBORIST =«��-•��--_- ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 14. FERTILIZATION: Fertilize redwood grove using timing and rates as per the original 2003 Mayne Tree Expert Co. report dated October 29, 2003. 15. "FENCE BUFFER": All construction, trenching, grading, and other activity shall occur at least 5-feet or more outside the existing fence perimeter location. No staging or materials storage shall be allowed within 5-feet of the chain link tree protection fence. 16. STAGING FOR LOTS 9 AND 10: Staging shall take place on the street and sidewalks only, or at least 30-feet from the redwood trunk edges (outside the 30-foot radial TPZ only). Access to lot 9 shall be from lot 10 only. Lot 9 will not be accessible from the street due to fencing erection around the "hatched area" root zone. 17. OLD TREE STUMP: Grind out the old tree stump on the south side of lot 10 (near the portable toilets) using a standard small size stump grinding machine. Do not pull or rip this stump out in any way. 18. TRENCHING: All utilities, landscaping, and drainage enhancement activity including, but not limited to electric lines, cable N, domestic water supply lines, fire system lines, phone lines, gas lines, storm drain lines, perimeter French drain trenches, roof downspout drain lines, landscape irrigation lines, and sewer lines shall either be eliminated, or placed at least 30-feet from the trunk edge of any redwood tree being preserved at this site. The site plan may require redesign in order to allow for this soil root zone distance to be preserved. ' • All storm area drains, French drains, and downspout drains shall be eliminated from the site plan. • Electrical connections must be overhead only, with no new power pole installation without the written consent of the City Arborist and/or his representative. Installation of a pole on Lots 9 or 10 would be subject to Project/City Arborists' direct supervision. • Water lines, gas lines and sewer connections shall be rerouted to at least 30- feet from the trunks of all existing redwood trees (example: along the lot line fence between lot 9 and the neighbor to the west). • Proposed landscape irrigation lines and landscape plantings shall be eliminated from within 30-ft of the trunk edge of any existing redwood on site. 19. SITE MONITORING: Site tree protection monitoring will be perFormed by City representatives and Mayne Tree Expert Co. representatives on a regular (at least twice weekly) basis and daily during crucial periods of site plan development such as foundation work, use of machinery, etc. as applicable. Site construction supervisor(s) shall maintain regular phone contact with tree monitoring personnel in order to coordinate scheduling. All small scale machinery activity shall be directly monitored by the arborists, and shall occur only outside the 30-foot radial TPZ except during helical anchor installation. 20. LANDSCAP(NG: Landscape plant installation and irrigation line trenching (bubbler lines, T-s, main lines, sprinkler lines, hubs, etc.) shall be prohibited within 30-linear feet of any redwood tree trunk on site. 10 of 13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 ?J Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Soaety of Consulting Arborists �)� � Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA A s �� istered Consulting Arborist #401 The proposed 30-ft radius TPZ shall be maintained as a mulched & composted area for the long term (5-years post occupancy as per City condition). 11 of 13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Society of Arboriculfure & Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists 2l 1�� ) Walter Levison �� . CONSULTING ARBORIST =��^��^ ISA Certified Arborist #WG3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 Lot 11 1. Perform all work on Lot 11 prior to construction on Lots 9 and/or Lot 10. 2. Prior to commencing work on Lot 11, install minimum 6-ft high chain link fencing on 2-inch diameter iron tube posts driven 24-inches into grade. Maximum post spacing: 6-ft apart. Fencing shall be erected along the entire lot line dividing Lots 10 and 11, at no farther than 10-ft west of the lot line. 3. Affix at least four (4) of the following laminated waterproof signs on the fence using zipties, minimum sign size 8"X11", stating: TREE PROTECTION FENCE DO NOT ALTER QR REMOVE CALL WALTER LEVISON (650) 697-0990 4. All staging shall take place on the street or sidewalks only. Materials and equipment shall be stored on the sidewalks only. 5. Construction personnel shall not be allowed to enter Lots 9 or 10, the entirety of which shall be considered a"tree protection zone" (TPZ) except for the 10-foot wide strip of lot 10 to be used as an access way and staging area for lot 11 construction. 6. TPZ fence shall be monitored on a regular basis by Project Arborist, City Arborist, and/or City Representative(s). Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any tides and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other govemment regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultanUappraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law othervuise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof dces not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultanVappraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultanUappraiser, or any reference to any professional socfety or institute or to any initiated designa6on conferred upon the consultanUappraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultanUappraiser, and the consu�tanYs/appraisers fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 12 of 13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2� Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, lntemational Sociefy of Arboriculture 8� Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists s 1� � Walter Levison '_�.�-.� CONSULTING ARBORIST �"�'�^^=^�^ , ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed othervvise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: a. infortnation contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or defiaencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statemen[: Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be heaithy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time. Likewise, remedial treatrnents cannot be guaranteed. The oniy way to eliminate all risk assoaated with trees is to eiiminate the trees themselves. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and coRect to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant Attachments: Fencing Location Map,1-Page Root Probe Location Map, 1-Page Root Area Calculation Map,1-Page Helical Anchor Information Sheet, 1-Page 13of13 1537 Drake Root Probe Findings and Recommendations 3/8/04 2J Phone/fax (650) 697-0990 Member, Intemational Sociery of Arboriculture & Registered Member, American Soaety of Consulting Arborists .�.r��r�' �� i � / � '.� •'I 'I �r � .� �• / � � 4��f � ! i ' �'��p 4 � � � i�w� .r�l � �`, �. . ;�!'d/-�,�'��i, •• �►� ,,,l, :, �. �� :� �a , - � , _11� � o , . � .:, b �i � ,�� - .� . �p �4f' w 1 � q ��> ��'� i � �� ,,,ti,.��p . �y � �t�e �!� o � '� '� `I n' � n F �S r , ��y � � /! � � � • �/ �. q � �cv� 0.��•• � �"�.1,.�. � w ti ' ► - r ,�,�4 0 � � p�4a� �.Q �'.". � a .�� . ! � �L f!D �d � �� ' '� � � •T 1 /�.�1�'�0 �� r • i � �.. • • / � o � � '.,� • , � �� •� �,, �t _ . � r " „ ,�•. '� �' *► � �� ;�:� j' � ., +�, m,'O�e� ti I � �� l� e� '�. ��,.�� a � �' -..-. . � � ;�� ,�, � ,�.�, d! � � � �.- � l, ota� : a dA e�' +� i" ` '�, ,�; 1 � ' ' �� , � � , �. a� � � � ��,� '� � � !``o d _„�i./ j ,�,,� °A wd � � � i �, � '� ��r� '�Q�,�d� '�,T` �,,� i • i" '�r er . ,�, ,r� ,� �! - ■ . �,,►�;•,. - ► _,�.. '��;� , ■ �, � t . �.: �1e+�se y � ��6i�� . , �eK-� 1 r •� �� ..��`// 1 � � I a� � � � ,� � _ . �. , � _ , - , . r�. - � ' , , , - . �, � _ � :� � ��, �11 ' . �' � ' � '�'' ;�' ` . � • � � � � �I � � :: , , . .: . _ , � e _ -r/ . .'.'_ � � ' r ' �' _ .k . Y ` .a � tl� :�jft ., y.'� " � ' - � i. ::'.'�.1 � i . � + . / ' , � :f •� ...+.�...��..�. _ � � ,� �, / 1 _ ' � _ , , .r — .�. , ►� . ;.:', ,�° . . r , �► . s 7 . "� � '' � � . ► � • � M _ : . . __.__ . _ _ �� pat+rC#3 �tx�'� �' � ^ j �.�� , { �!� ;I. v � � a � 1: ::i�� . ' .�. � '��•'..�.' .•�,•.'. •t• ► �'�� `'"�� i � . �'''�:i:: ��i'r'� . . . I �� I � � I� �� '. 1I' 1� i � �CIf�T�2 501L � � � � i ; �ULBq�RLx1C � ��" s u� ; � � � � �� ' �� p � I' � AR�1 V�: , �� E� pII c ; �--�.I � � . � 01 p� 0 � � � W �.�,�� '.di�'ii►�'� �'._��.�� r.�� .� ', � � ��i .�g� �.�. — 1 N1�170D : 0 � � I 'o"'" t meNU� �yQ�w F� � � � � � f i,auecxeo--� ' - � W� I � � •,r '' + ;,•.; � .i.� .i• .tt. .': 't�t .�. '• • � :: •� J fy. ''�' '•v." i � L� •'7'• ,J. �:�� . ��. J T �A• : �{ .t .I .,7;,. Y '�'••'•'•' �••, ' � ..�. : ;:::.: � :,.;�::,�..; -::r•. — s _ _ ��.-.r�'' ..�':S� ..1�.. ••�', n R.T •' •'R R.T �T� � ��il: _ '-I,',;Js: ' •'I : �'"•%' ":� ,•t�I�sFD'7:. :'; ; '.'.' � ; ':' '.'; . . :1 � � � � ;4�i�'.•�A:�•: :;j� :,:' '_' •'• ..'� �r�•,�r�lr� :;�'� ., �' }r. �?.�,� t. ,.+.. _:�'_ .•�. 'I .,;',=w:+4�: �� •! r � -----�- — '!�1 � g ' 1...'„';;'. '.',,. {1ti; ;1�. {. :�^:`. i� �� .1. • \•• ..... 1� � � _— ,'u�, F _ fi � .�, � ' � �'; j� 4 � .�'. .'F.• I [ �� ; I L__. — :�_ :��::: ��i�1�il.i.`; . . � • ;•*�.�:; -< - - ..,, , �,;�;.;�;�; �., ,,.: I.',7},C� t�+V .,;t,:�.l',,.�'•��i�'•S �4 : :�� w .. �� Y: ,'. •�:•' '��{:.: �t' '•`: ' •'' y��'. � ,. '•".•;., C�^ t :.i:• 9:: • '' � : ;�•:;; ',.p� � .�'.^ ; ;�;:� ;� �... �, , :�. rr�+�' .;::. . ees+o� `� . �.. � � ; . � '. i� }'�:` �r: 6+Y ��M.�1y. � ••t.� ♦_ i ii — .�+- I �� . - - . ,_.,_ r � _Lr:: .... p . — ---�. g _. _ .. - � . ,. J � '� � f:vetro:E. NQIi6TN01M I' � LOT 1O °N,�;,R:LlA � R� i � �f b� a� � ID��UIR f�M _L � �O `� �� . I I�li�C�A1� V Z Z �� D R A K L� A Y E N U E <5m' R/WI j --- . .__.._._. t, A1. �..A � � .��,� •_DS �-s..'_"9!� _'"�6'......._.___..-63_..�_......_...3�... -l5�..._.__.. _.gb....r -Sl-... i-+� _•"_._.._.._f! �--""'�'60'___.._.... _ �8 .. C a � I�, ��• •�~ �' SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN . � � _ - . �__ .. r .�'1- : �'i: _ u _ �,,,..,,�,,,_ _ ,� �� - �';��! "; ,, �;�� _ - `IN�� . ; , �� ,�,_ : ;� �� _ __- �- ,, � � + ` , � }=iii- =tz.il�:i1 ,�� - r i -- �rlil��s � ��1��t�►�� _.4'_ -'�r . �,t� }�, ,.��, j _� I� i� t ,i. .I, �'� ( ty'r . t ' — �i. f �•/�)�� '��•=' � 1 F.� _�-� -,.,.,..�.-�_ .._ +� � _ � - . :r . �.�; :�i; i � � � �� _....r �-- _.�. �,. :.�� . ,1 �� - � �� I��:�� ` � � a�.:, /►,I:l;_.1i. � r� �/ ;,� �� II'��: r `�,� �� i l—' 1� :F��i� .� . � �} �4 :,��, ,� . i .�!'S�. � � .r.:�.:�.ri� �7�� r .r+L,�� , _':� � +--_-�-,� j+�`y' � � � I� t !+ f `��.��.1 . +- � .�—�. J/i�w� ..'�i�� =►•w.�rrr� t .. _�..,�- �� .�- � _--l�=�- ! �i `� j I�;� '� �� — � ,i -�:��, �,4•• __. w _ --.� ; +�- �+. �! � �: �< < �.�' ' i ;.� - ; -�:� ��r �t��tii�M' ....,. ,�,�,�1 ,. � �. �� ' ��,�� L'� r r■�■� ABOUT CH�INCE YOUR DISTRIBUTOR CASE HISTOFiIES HARDV`JARE INSTALLATION CHANCEHOME SITE MRP - _ Fo�da�tion Homeow�er > New Foundations FOR HOMEOWA � �oundatlons f BasemQat 81 The CHAHCE NELICAL PIQt� Foundation S�ms are de�d� tested. and P�� for app�tlons in e�e soils. M9h waber tables. flll areas. and other areas where u�utable soils requtre pierin9- p�qNCE is the onty oomPa^Y +� a pre-en9lneered and manufacbured underpitu�ing system evaluated and �ested b1' all nat r� b�t_f�d��q �� ge�• BOCA Report � 94-27 ICBp R�Bpprt � EER5110 S6CCT Report # 9504 On r��d l�atic�g c� sEeen waNs; the new oonstrucao� :� HELICAI. PIER foundetla► Sysbems anchors are usuapY ' placed every 8 to 10 feet �din9 �P� �� of the ' f• sdrud�ll'e aMl the beari�W � vf d�e Soil. A two man trcw with a sldd loader t� place aver SO andwrs ready for ba�9 M less than one daY. And�ors 1aEed bY the bufldin9 oodes f� workM9 b� of 10 Lo 20 bons are tYP�- PhoWem: New home construcNon in soft soils. Soiution Example: . 'Phe H�nt at Louyier subclivislon P�Wem: New eltvated home wnstruction. Solution Example: Chandl�, Rg �fs' �nce • Chanoe� Dktionary of Terms • Home re artkie� FiOME ME�HANIX P'1�� nsist on tho Orlgi�ai. _. C�i�g Worfd `s Leaiier in earth anchoring since � 9�7 BocA � ; �p 1 1� �„ � j 1 C B 0. USitd {��.�:� �,� �� All aonbents GoD�'m� �^ e�'ht m du�9e desi9n arul sP m�� wuhout ��-e. ot c . pac�F�c HE �DCAL SUP�[..t�lzl �NSTAt��R.: d��'� �Nc. - � �. �� p„pne; (406) 374�6297 - Ema�: b�@P�� •�' (409) 379-5176 176 CH�nan Avenue. Can�pl�e�• G� � newfaundations.html 4/24/2003 httpJ/www.abchaace com/ho apP_