ORACLE OAK, LLC

146 Jordan Ave, San Francisco CA 94118

(415) 225-5567 larrycostello@me.com

ARBORIST REPORT

Date: 7/25/18
To: Sabrina Berdux, Deputy City Attorney, City of San Francisco
From: Larry Costello, Consulting Arborist, Oracle Oak LLC
Re: Evaluation of Construction Impacts to Canary Island Pine Trees at Washington
Square Park, San Francisco, CA

Assignment
• Observe the condition of nine Canary Island pine
(Pinus canariensis) trees (Fig. 1) and an olive (Olea
europaea) tree following excavations associated
with renovation of the playground at Washington
Square Park (currently in progress).
• Evaluate the impacts of project excavations on
the health and stability of Canary Island pine and
olive trees.
• Make recommendations regarding the retention,
remediation, or removal of the trees.
• Provide a written report addressing findings and
recommendations, which will serve as a follow-up Fig. 1. Canary Island pines adjacent
to the playground at Washington
to a branch failure in tree #54 (Canary Island pine) Square Park.
and resultant litigation (Zhou case).

Background
On July 19, 2018, I met with Sabrina Berdux (Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco), Levi
Conover (Project Manager, San Francisco Recreation and Park Department), and Kelly
Cornell (Urban Forester, San Francisco Recreation and Park Department) at the
Washington Square Park (WSP) playground to observe the subject trees and
construction impacts. During the meeting, cut roots on the playground side of the
Canary Island pine trees were noted, as well as roots cut on the north and west sides of
the olive tree. Photos were taken of the trees and site. Following the meeting, I received
and reviewed a copy of an arborist report prepared for Treaty Construction by Kevin
Kielty (Kielty Arborist Services LLC, San Mateo, CA) dated July 12, 2018.

1

Fig. 2. Renovation of the WSP playground
Fig. 3. Soil excavation around this olive tree
resulted in soil excavations and root cutting
(arrow) resulted in roots being cut on the
next to Canary Island pines (background). playground side. (Photo: SFRPD)

On June 29, 2018, I visited the WSP playground to take photos related to pending
litigation concerning a Canary Island pine. Playground renovation was in progress at the
time and photos were taken of the site (Fig. 2) and excavation around the olive tree (Fig.
3). Additional photos taken during and following trenching/excavation on the
playground side of the Canary Island pines and around the olive were provided by the
San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SFRPD).

In 2017, HortScience Inc. (Arboricultural and Horticultural Consultants, Pleasanton, CA)

conducted an assessment of trees located in Washington Square Park, including the
subject trees. The following are findings from the HortScience report prepared for the
SF Recreation and Park Department (Tree Assessment (2017): Washington Square Park):
Canary Island pine (#47-55)
Trunk Diameter Range: 20-31 inches
Condition Rating (1=poor, 5=excellent): 5 trees received a
rating of 3, and 4 trees were rated 4.
Suitability for Preservation: low (2 trees), moderate (5), high (2)
Olive (#32)
Trunk Diameter: 19 and 17 inches (codominant stems)
Condition Rating: 3
Suitability for Preservation: moderate

Observations
• The Canary Island pines are located on the
west side of the playground at Washington
Square Park (Columbus/Powell x Filbert) and
appear to be in moderate to good health
(Figs. 1 & 2). Most trees show typical foliar

color and crown density. Two trees (#51 and Fig. 4. Canary Island pines showing
#53) are somewhat smaller than other trees in backfilled trench on northeast side
(arrow) and orange netting
the stand and may have been suppressed by wrapped around trunks or installed
adjacent trees. For trees along Columbus Ave., with stakes.

2
 crowns have developed to a greater extent on the southwest side than on the
northeast side. Orange netting had been installed around tree trunks, from 0 ft
(wrapped around the trunk) to approximately 4 feet from the trunks (Fig. 4).

• The olive tree is located on the east side of the

playground and appears to be in good health with
fairly typical foliar color and crown density. The
tree has codominant stems arising near ground
level, with one stem wrapping part way around
the other. Orange netting had been wrapped
around it as well (Fig. 3).

• During construction, a trench had been dug along

the northeast side of the Canary Island pines and
stubs of cut roots were exposed (Fig. 5). Root
diameters ranged from less than 1 inch to greater Fig. 5. Trench excavated on
playground side of Canary
than 3 inches. Root cuts were made Island pines showing multiple
approximately 3 to 5 feet from tree trunks. The cut or damaged roots of
bark on some root stubs was ripped, torn, or varying sizes. (Photo: SFRPD)

shredded, suggesting that they had not been

cut with a saw or pruning tools (Fig. 6). Some
root stubs were covered with a black cloth-like
material. The depth of the trench was not
determined at the time of inspection because
backfill had been added and then compacted.

Fig. 6. Ripped and shredded bark
• Excavation activity also occurred between on excavated root from Canary
pines on the northwest side of the playground, Island pine. (Photo: SFRPD)
from the playground to Filbert St. (where a set
of stairs had been removed). This was a wider
and deeper excavation than that along the
northeast side of the pines, ostensibly for
sewer and/or drain lines (Fig. 7). The pit
associated with the excavation had been filled
in as well.

• Another excavation occurred on the north

and west sides of the olive, apparently for the
installation of subsurface drain and/or sewer
lines. This pit was being filled in at the time of
the site visit. Similar to the pines, roots of the
olive had been cut during excavations (Fig. 8).
Fig. 7. Backfilled excavation between
pines adjacent to Filbert St. Note cut
roots (arrow)were found in the pit
between the uncovered pipe and the
grated pipe.

3
Findings
• In general, the Canary Island pines and
olive were in reasonably good health.
Crown color and density appeared typical
for mature trees, little dieback was found,
and reasonable growth was evident. This
finding is consistent with that reported in
the 2017 Tree Assessment prepared by
HortScience Inc.
• Both large and small roots were cut
Fig. 8. Excavated pit next to olive has
during excavation, with some cut roots been backfilled and compacted.
being greater than 2 inches in diameter.
This finding is consistent with the Kielty
report that notes “the nine pines have had minor to significant root cut(s)”.
• The Kielty report noted that for the olive “The contractor did an excellent job
with hand digging reducing
root damage”, and for the
pines “Hand digging by the
contractor has reduced
root damage.” However,
this did not appear to be
the case: Bark and wood
on a number of roots of
Fig. 9. Large root from Canary Island pine not cleanly cut
the pines was ripped, (arrow). Note bark along root is not fully intact. Also, note
shredded, or shattered shattered root in lower left (arrow). (Photo: SFRPD)

(Fig. 9), suggesting power

equipment (e.g., backhoe) may have been used to excavate the trench. To a
lesser but notable extent, this was found to be the case for the olive as well (Fig.
10).
• It is unclear exactly how many roots of the pines and olive had been cut because
trenches and excavation pits were backfilled and then compacted (Fig. 11).
• As a result of root cutting, anchorage of
the pines has been compromised,
resulting in some level of destabilization.
• Much of the crown weight in the pines
occurs on the southwest side. As a
result, roots on the northeast side of the
trees are likely to be tension-loaded.
Cutting these roots increases the
potential for failure of the trees to the
southwest, i.e., towards Columbus Ave. Fig. 10. Olive roots cut during excavation
(arrow). Roots were torn or shattered,
• Prior to playground renovation, i.e., not cut cleanly.
installation of a handicap ramp on

4
 Columbus Ave. along the southwest side of the pines may have resulted in root
loss, possibly leading to a further loss of anchorage.
• Root cutting close to the trunk of a tree increases the potential for instability.
“Linear cuts on one side of a tree can reduce stability when the cut is made at a
distance from the trunk that is less than 3 times the trunk diameter.” (Root
Management: Best Management Practices, International Society of
Arboriculture, 2017). With an average trunk diameter of the pines being 25
inches, and 3 times trunk diameter being 75 inches, root cuts made at 3 ft (36
inches), 4 ft (48 inches), and 5 ft (60 inches) are all well within the 3-times-trunk-
diameter distance for instability noted in the Root Management BMP.
• Similar to the pines, the extent of root cutting on the olive is not known, but an
increase in loss of anchorage likely has occurred, and a proportionate loss of
stability has resulted.
• Soil compaction around both the
pines and olive will have an
adverse effect on the function of
fine roots (Figs. 8 & 11). Loss of
fine root function will negatively
affect water and mineral uptake
and, therefore, diminish the
health of both species. In addition,
soil compaction will significantly
Fig. 11. Soil backfilled in trench adjacent to Canary
limit the potential for the Island pines. Soil in the trench and adjacent area
development of new roots, (on left) has been compacted.
resulting in an additional negative
impact on tree health.

Recommendations
1. Remove all 9 Canary Island pines (#47-55). Root
cutting and soil compaction have compromised the
health and stability of these trees. With much of the
crown weight on the southwest side, and roots cut on
the side opposite to that of crown weight, (northeast
side), an unknown, but likely substantial, level of
destabilization has resulted (Fig. 12). Consequently,
Fig. 12. Roots greater than 2
an increase in the potential of whole tree failure inches in diameter were cut
towards Columbus Ave. has resulted. Trees along during excavation of a trench on
the playground side of Canary
Filbert St. have sustained root cutting associated with Island pines (arrows). With much
utility excavation as well (Fig. 7), and some level of of the weight of the tree crown on
destabilization. Removal of the pines should be the side opposite that of root cuts,
instability and potential for whole
completed as soon as can be facilitated to avoid tree failure towards Columbus
consequences associated with whole tree failure(s). Ave. have increased. (Photo:
SFRPD)

Although some trees in the stand likely sustained a

5
greater amount of root damage than others, the exact level of root damage is not
known for individual trees. As a result, it is difficult to determine which trees have a
higher level of instability than others, i.e., in order to select them for removal.
Considering the unknown stability or instability status of individual trees in the stand,
the removal of all Canary Island pines is deemed to be a reasonable and prudent course
of action.

In addition, the removal of some trees “opens” the stand and exposes remaining trees
to unaccustomed wind loads. Such a change in environment can lead to an increased
potential for branch breaks and possibly whole tree failure. In this case, whole tree
failure is a significant concern due to the unknown level of root cutting that the trees
have sustained.

2. Additional construction work planned on the southwest side of the trees (irrigation
lines and curbing) will likely result in additional root cutting. Depending on the size and
number of roots cut, there will be an additional level of instability in the trees. It is
recommended that this work not be initiated until the Canary Island pines have been
removed.

3. Remove the olive (#32). A substantial loss of roots likely has occurred due to
construction excavations. Although olive is a resilient tree, the combination of root loss
and low potential for root regeneration due to soil compaction will adversely affect its
health and likely expedite its decline.

___________________________________________________________
L. R. Costello, Oracle Oak LLC

Disclosure Statement
Consulting arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training,
and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and
health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose
to accept or disregard the recommendations of the consulting arborist, or to seek
additional advice.

Consulting arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the
structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully
understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Consulting
arborists cannot and do not guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all

6
circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot
be guaranteed.

Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope
of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines,
disputes between neighbors, and other issues. A consulting arborist cannot take such
considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to
the arborist. A consulting arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the
completeness and accuracy of the information provided.

Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept
some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to
eliminate the trees.

Assumptions and Limiting Conditions

1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct.

Any titles and ownerships 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
or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent
management.

2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances,
statutes or other governmental regulations.

3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been
verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee
nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.

4. 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.

5. Unless required by law otherwise, possession of this report or a copy thereof does not
imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom
it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the
consultant/appraiser.

6. 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 written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser - - particularly as to
value conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any

7
professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the
consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications.

7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's 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.

8. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural
reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information
generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or
photographs is for the express purpose or coordination and ease of reference only.
Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation by L. R. Costello or Oracle Oak LLC as to the sufficiency or accuracy of
said information.

9. Unless expressed otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those
items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of
inspection; and 2) 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 deficiencies of the plants or property in question
may not arise in the future.

10. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.