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