Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - BC - 1996.01.04hr TitV of Purfingamr PARK DEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAME AVENUE TEL (415) 696-7245 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 FAX: (415) 696-7216 December 18, 1995 Mr. I. Grivakis 1601 Ralston Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF PRIVATE OAK @ 1601 RALSTON AVENUE At its regular meeting of December 7, 1995, the Burlingame Beautification Commission moved to continue your request for L' removal of the private Oak tree at the January 4, 1996 meeting. The Commission asked that they be provided with a report from a certified Arborist as to the condition of the tree. The Commission meets at 5:30 p.m. in Conference Room "A" at City Hall should you wish to attend. Sincerely, Richard P. Quadri Director of Parks RPQ/kh printed nn recycled paper `J Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 LICENSED FORESTERS • CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS KENNETH D. MEYER December 20, 1995 23 SOUTH RAILROAD AVENUE P.O. BOX 522 PRESIDENT SAN MATEO, CA 94401 RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON TELEPHONE: (415) 344-3860 VICE PRESIDENT FAX: (415) 344-9848 Mr. Yanni Grivakis 1601 Ralston Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Grivakis: On Monday, December 11, 1995, 1 inspected your large double-trunked live oak, Quercus agrifolia, located along the driveway of 211 Occidental, Burlingame. The trunks are both around 24 inches in diameter and fork at about 4 feet above ground level. (Measurements are only approximate.) The tree is causing extensive damage to the floor, walls and roof of the existing garage. Repairs to straighten and level the garage would cause extensive damage to the tree. Moving the garage five feet northward could result in significant root damage from the new foundation and therefore loss of support to the tree. This opinion depends on how close the tree was to the covered -over creek below the garage. A closer inspection of the tree revealed two major structural and/or health problems. The trunk has decay as evidenced by a wound on the low south side. Decay reduces the structural integrity of the trunk. The amount of support loss is difficult to quantify as it varies with tree health and the time the decay has been active within the trunk. In my opinion it has been active for many years and so a high potential for loss of structural integrity exists. This does not mean the tree is ready to collapse, but the possibility is always present. The second problem I observed was an oak root fungus infection, Armillaria mellea, on the low easterly side. This disease can reduce root support to a tree and ultimately kill the tree. I believe the small pocket of disease which can be observed is the proverbial tip of the iceberg and that more disease is below the surface and infecting the roots. Treatment of oak root fungus may slow down the spread of disease, but there is a tradeoff as decay will enter the resulting wounds. The tree is also near several targets, homes, wires, sidewalks, streets, and most importantly, children's play areas. Where safety issues are of concern, one must be very cognizant of tree structure. Mitigation of risks is only temporary and generally weakens the tree further as well as exacerbating present problems. Grivakis 12-20-95, Pg. 20 In my opinion it is most logical and prudent to remove this tree in order to mitigate the safety risks and to allow for repairs to the existing garage. I believe this report is accurate and follows sound arboricultural principles. Sincerely Richard L. Huntington Certified Arborist WC #0119 . f _ r , C= e /.Y V CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Park Director- DATE: January 30, 1996 FROM: City Attorne. /�.�-�----/- SUBJECT: Request Tor reuy�val of tree at 1601 Ralston The Beautification Commission has a request for removal of a tree at 1601 Ralston. Apparently the property owner wishes to remove the tree so that he may repair the nonconforming garage on the property in its present location. He claims that the tree will eventually destroy the garage if it is allowed to remain. I am not familiar with the property other than looking at old city records, but I assume there are two possible areas of nonconformity. One would be dimensional. That is, a new garage must be in the rear 30% of the lot, must have certain interior measurements, and must meet other similar requirements. If the current garage were rebuilt to 50o or more of its value or if it is built elsewhere on the lot, it would need a variance if it did not meet these standards. Possibly more of concern to the property owner is the "use" nonconformity, in that the current garage contains a family room and toilet facilities. A use permit from the Planning Commission would be required to place these in a garage rebuilt to 50% or more of its value or in a new garage; such permits are not always granted. Under section 11.06.060 (d) of the city code there are seven items which you may consider in this application. Two of them are "the condition of the tree or trees with respect to disease, danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures . . a nd the economic consequences . . . of requiring a tree to remain" (Section 11.06.060 (d)(1) and (7)). Thus phrased in the context of this item, one of the issues before you is whether the preservation of the tree outweighs the cost and inconvenience to the property owner of having to reconstruct the garage elsewhere and/or being denied the family room and bathroom in the new structure. DATE: JANUARY 30, 1996 TO: J. COLEMAN - CITY ATTORNEY FROM: R QUADRI - DIRECTOR OF PARKS RE: TREE REMOVAL APPLICATION/NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE The Beautification Commission is considering a request for removal of a large Oak tree at 1601 Ralston. The tree is causing visible damage to a detached garage on the property. During discussion at previous meetings, it has been noted several times by various parties that the structure is "non -conforming". This has caused some confusion among the interested parties. Will you please clarify what role, if any, this fact has on the application before the Commission. Richard P. Quadri Director of Parks Attachments: 12/7/95 and 1/4/96 BBC Minutes M 'The Tity of 3urfi tganle PARK DEPARTMENT 850 BURLINGAME AVENUE TEL: (42 696-7245 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 FAx (415) 696-7216 February 2, 1996 I. Grivakis 1601 Ralston Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Grivakis: At its regular meeeting of February 1, 1996, the Burlingame Beautification Commission voted 4-2 to issue a permit to remove an Oak tree at the above address. This decision can be appealed to the City Council within 10 days. If no appeal is received by February 12, 1996, I will issue the permit. Please call me at (415) 696-7245 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Richard P. Quadri Director of Parks RPQ/kh CC: Brian and Mary Delehanty L printed on recycled Paper L i