Loading...
SR-112508-8ECity Council Meeting: November 25, 2008 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: Joan Akins, Acting Director, Community Maintenance Subject: Carob Tree Removal and Replacement: Recommendation to Authorize the Removal and Replacement of 202 Carob Trees, of which 189 are Identified as High Risk with Potential Failure Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the removal and replacement of 202 carob trees: 189. identified as high risk trees with a potential for failure and an additional 13 trees that have very poor viability. Executive Summary This report describes the reassessment of carob trees identified for removal due to public safety risks and provides a timeline for a removal and a replacement plan. After presenting the findings of the initial study at the May 22, 2008 City Council meeting; Council directed staff to determine the feasibility of phasing the carob removals by developing a timeline that would allow the removals to take place in the fall to avoid the loss of shade during the summer months. Two Registered Consulting Arborists reassessed 202 trees with a lower risk rating of 8 and 9 in an attempt to develop a phased removal process. As a result of the reassessment, 12 trees will remain and be monitored to determine if regular pruning will mitigate the risk of failure, 44 trees were recommended for immediate removal, 117 trees were recommended for removal in the fall, and 28 trees were recommended for various specialized pruning treatments and/or eventual removal. In several cases, the failure potential for individual trees was actually raised during the second assessment due to the advanced declining health of the trees. Staff has been working with neighborhood associations to select appropriate replacement species where none has been identified. Per Council direction, 36" box replacement trees will be planted immediately after the removals and remedial pruning treatments have been completed. Funds are available in the current budget for removal and replacement. 1 Background Carobs in Santa Monica Carob (ceratonia sitiqua) is a common tree found on Santa Monica's streets. In 1999, when Council adopted the Community Forest Management Plan, carobs ranked as the sixth most prevalent tree in the city and made up approximately 3% of the forest. Over the past 10 years this species has gradually declined in numbers. This is primarily due to the fact that during this period, many carob trees have had to be removed as a result of limb and/or tree failures. As a result it now ranks as the twelfth most prevalent species in the City's tree inventory and makes up less than 2% of the forest. Moreover, due to their potential for failure, carobs have not been planted as a street tree in Santa Monica since the mid 1990's. Carobs have a moderate growth rate, are drought-resistant and require little irrigation. They can reach a mature height of 25 - 50 feet with a canopy spread of 30 - 40 feet. They will develop a trunk diameter anywhere from 30 - 50 inches with a trunk base that can get much larger than that.. They require a large grow space to accommodate their mature size, as their roots can displace surrounding hardscape. The displacement of pavement by roots and the associated root pruning requirements limits their viability as street trees. Although they are generally pest-free, they are susceptible to insect or disease infestation when under stress and highly prone to decay fungi. These decay organisms are usually found in trees that have wounds on their trunk or scaffold limbs or have been root pruned for hardscape repair. The problem of decay ih the root mass also becomes compounded in trees that are irrigated in the summer because of the associated fungal growth in warm wet soil that attacks roots. The life-span of carobs grown in Southern California streetscape settings is unknown This is because mature trees often fail due to decay at the base of the trunk, poor structure, or general decline in condition. Over 80% of reported carobs failures recorded in the California Tree Failure Database involve decay. 2 Since FY01-02, staff has recorded close to 90 failures of carob trees throughout the City.. Over 40 of those failures have occurred since the beginning of FY05-06. Ten of those failures have occurred between the time of the initial study conducted by HortScience, Inc. in October 2007 and the first public meeting held in May 2008. Additionally, since the carob replacement project began in May 2008, staff has recorded two tree failures that have damaged cars and four known limb failures. The tree failures have occurred during all types of weather and range from limb to total tree failure. The majority of the failures involve decay in the limbs, the trunk, or root mass. The presence of this decay is not always visible on the tree's exterior. Risk ratings on those failed trees have ranged from moderate (6) to high (10). Carob Tree Study In response to the increasing number of carob failures and to increase public safety and reduce the City's liability exposure, the City contracted with HortScience, Inc., an arboricultural.firm that specializes in urban forestry. analysis, in October 2007. The objective was to study 630 mature carob trees throughout the City to determine health, viability and the risk associated with their condition. Each tree's failure potential was assessed using a standard risk rating system that is commonly used to the arboriculture field. Three components were rated on a scale from 1 to 4 with 4 being the highest. They were: 1) the likelihood that a failure would take place; 2) the size of the part of the tree most likely to fail; and 3) the target below the tree. The three components were added together to form a composite risk rating that ranges. from 3 to 12. The full report is attached and available to the public on the City's Community Forest web page. Study results show that 300 carob trees present significant risk of failure and require removal and several additional trees require removal and specialized .pruning treatments in order to eliminate the risk exposure associated with those trees. All of the trees with risk ratings of 8 and above were recommended for removal. 13 trees that have a risk rating of 7 were also recommended for removal because they are in very. poor condition. 3 Below is a summary of the risk ratings and current status of the 630 carobs that were identified for removal and specialized pruning treatments. Risk Rating Total Current status 12 1 Tree has already been removed. 11 21 All trees with this rating have been removed. 10 76 All trees with this rating have been removed. 9 83 All trees with this rating have been reassessed. 8 106 All trees with this rating have been reassessed. 7 140 13 of these are in very poor condition and are slated for removal; the rest will be scheduled for specialty pruning. 6 110 Scheduled for specialty pruning 5 or less 93 Scheduled for specialty pruning Total 630 * It was determined that these 13 trees rated as 7, but in very poor condition, should be posted for removal based on their lack of viability and declining condition. Presentation of Findings to the Public In response to public concern regarding the carob tree removal and replacement project, staff conducted a community meeting on May 7, 2008 to present the findings of the study, present the removal and replacement plan, and to answer questions about the project. A panel of urban forestry experts provided additional information on carobs and answered questions about the study, as well as urban forestry best management practices. At the community meeting, members of the public requested more information, and in response, staff committed to reassessing the trees identified for removal (assigned risk ratings of 8 and 9). The objective was to determine their health, viability and any risk that could be associated with their declining condition. However, noting that the primary goal of the carob removal and replacement project is public safety, it was pointed out that phasing the removal of some trees may. not be feasible. Staff returned to Council on May 22, 2008 and received funding to remove 299 declining carobs. At that meeting, Council asked staff to return with findings and recommendations following the reassessment of the trees rated 8 and 9. 4 Discussion In June 2008, two independent Registered Consulting Arborists were retained by the City to reassess 189 carob trees with risk .ratings of 8 and 9. All of these trees were initially evaluated in the HortScience, Inc. study using the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Hazard Evaluation form (Attachment A). Utilizing the ISA Hazard Evaluation format, staff developed a modified form that the Registered Consulting Arborists used to give a positive or negative rating to individual attributes of individual trees. In that modified form, each of the criteria was given a negative or a positive rating and totaled. The highesf possible rating is +16 (best) and the lowest possible rating is -16 (worst). Trees that were scored with more negative attributes than positive attributes were then determined to have a higher potential for failure than trees with fewer negative attributes. The individual trees were then ranked according to those totals (Attachment B). The individual attributes examined were Tree health: The tree's foliage -color and general vigor along with the density of the canopy that consists of good annual shoot growth with normal leaf size is an indication of a viable tree which is healthy and thriving. These in themselves are positive attributes and are rated as such. Trees which displayed poor vigor with foliage that was dying back, off-color due to an anemic condition, or sparse canopies with stunted leaves and shoot growth were given a negative rating. Trees with these symptoms usually had associated root problems and were either in a state of decline, or prone to eventual failure. The presence of shoot growth along the main stems and limbs or at the base of the trunk is a strong indication of a struggling tree. This shoot growth forms in response to sudden exposure to light and is associated with stress to the tree. 5 Trees which have been topped, have severe wounds on a limb or stem often produce many such sprouts as a means of compensating for the loss of leaf surface throughout the canopy. In other cases, trees that suffer from severe die-back due to stress or injury to the root system also will produce sucker growth along the main stem or at the base of the tree. Carobs under stress are prone to such sprouting and were rated negatively when they displayed these signs. A tree which has been wounded from old pruning treatments, construction activities or other reasons and has decay that has not been compartmentalized would have a negative attribute and rated as such. Wounds that were compartmentalized, such as in a spot where a proper pruning cut was made and subsequently calloused over, would have a positive attribute. Trees which were infested with pests or showed symptoms of disease were given a negative rating because trees under stress are more prone to insect infestation. In other cases, trees with extensive wounds are prone to attack by disease pathogens that enter the tree through the open wounds. Both instances contribute to tree decline. • Site conditions: Site conditions considered whether the tree was in a turf setting that received regular or excessive irrigation. This is considered to be a negative attribute because carob trees do not require regular moisture. Carobs growing in irrigated turf are prone to root rot and therefore, highly subject to failure. Trees that were growing in confined areas, such as a small tree in a well cut-out or a narrow parkway, were examined for damage due to repairs made to the surrounding hardscape (i.e. sidewalk, curb, gutter or driveway). Trees with new hardscape were usually wounded from root pruning and had associated decay at the base of the tree and were given a negative rating. Decay fungi, such as Armillaria or Ganoderma, found near older wounds, indicate extensive internal decay. Trees exhibiting these characteristics were also given a negative rating. 6 • Root defects: Root defects such as root rot, the presence of decay fungi, exposed roots or wounds to the surface roots as a result of hardscape repairs or construction work were examined closely. The existence of these conditions is usually associated with wounds found at the base of a tree. These symptoms are strong indications that the base of the tree has been compromised and there is a likelihood of failure. Trees found with these conditions were therefore rated negatively. Summary of Reassessment: Both of the Registered Consulting Arborists that performed the second assessment concurred with the findings presented in the original study that was conducted by HortScience, Inc. In several cases, the failure potential for individual trees was actually raised during the second assessment due to the advancement of declining condition. Attachments C, D & E are three individual spreadsheets with comments regarding the condition of the 189 reassessed carob trees. The three spreadsheets are labeled separately and provide detailed comments submitted by HortScience, Inc., observations and conclusions made by the individual Registered Consulting Arborists during the reassessment, and the comprehensive comments made by staff during their field reviews. The reassessed ratings for the individual trees are also .provided on the spreadsheets. The higher negative scores indicate that an individual tree has more negative attributes, thereby posing a higher risk for failure than a tree with a lower negative score or with a positive score. Out of the 189 trees. reassessed, a total of 177 trees are recommended for removal.. Of those 177 trees, 74 have very poor viability, 91 have poor viability and 12 have moderate viability. None of the- 177 trees were considered to be in good health or condition, with 44 recommended for immediate removal and 117 recommended for removal in a subsequent phase soon thereafter. Best management practices for high risk trees is to reduce the potential for tree and/or limb failure by removing the defective part(s) of the tree that create the -risk, or remove 7 the tree entirely. Phasing the removals over an extended period of time would result in the retention of trees that actually have very poor to moderate viability and known risk factors that will increase the longer they remain in place. Retaining high risk trees will require a higher degree of monitoring by staff and an increase in pruning frequencies by keeping some of the existing canopy on individual streets with a phased removal plan. This would require the remaining trees to be pruned, however that would not reduce risk unless the defective part of the tree is removed.. In many of those cases, removal of the defective part(s) of the trees would most likely result in severe disfigurement of the tree and ruin the aesthetic value. The pruning treatments would only serve as temporary mitigation because their condition will continue to decline over time and the risk factor will continue to increase exponentially. The reassessment also recommends that 28 trees be pruned in an effort to possibly reduce their risk rating and postpone their removal. As a follow up to the consultants' recommendations, staff prepared specifications for the 28 trees recommended for pruning with the goal of the reduction of risk. The two options for treatment are to either remove the defective parts from the trees or prune the trees in a manner that maintains canopy structure and aesthetic value. It was noted that with 16 of the 28 trees, removal of the decayed and/or high-risk limbs would result in severe disfigurement due to the amount of canopy loss that would be caused by the pruning treatment. The alternative to drastic pruning treatments would be removal of these trees. Conversely, an effort to retain the trees by pruning them in a manner that maintains canopy structure and aesthetic value would not result in the removal of the entire defective part of the tree. This type of pruning treatment would not reduce the risk rating as the defective part of the tree. would still remain and a failure could still occur. Retaining these trees in this condition would result in an increase of staff time to monitor and/or prune them because they will continue to deteriorate and their risk potential will increase. 8 The 12 trees identified for pruning -and retention are in moderate health, but will still need to be examined regularly to determine if the pruning treatments have mitigated the potential risk associated with those trees. These trees will need to be continually monitored on a regular basis to determine any deterioration of their condition. However, it should be noted that the City has experienced a series of carob failures that had risk ratings ranging from 11 down to a 6 and failure potential cannot always be predicted based on a score of known defects in a tree. In the event that any of these 12 trees display symptoms that point to a high risk factor and/or continue to drop limbs, they will be removed. Timeline for Removals and Replacements: Trees that have been identified for removal should be posted for removal as soon as possible, with removals commencing two weeks after they have-been posted. It is anticipated that the removals will take approximately 12 - 14 weeks to complete. Trimming will take place simultaneously with the removals and the replacement trees being planted immediately following the removals. The proposed replacement trees will be presented to the residents of Lincoln Blvd., 10th Street and 12th Street in December. Public Outreach The public outreach and community education component of this project continued in May and June 2008 as staff presented to the following community organizations most affected by the. carob removals: • Friends of Sunset Park • Wilmont Homeowners Association • Ocean Park Association Staff has attempted to meet with members of NOMA, however a meeting .date was never agreed upon and they have recently indicated they do not want to meet with staff. Staff has also created guidelines for watering, maintaining and protecting street trees on the Community Forest web site. Staff presented the findings of the second assessment 9 at a community meeting held on October 1, 2008. The meeting was publicized through the City's website, on neighborhood association websites, on CityTV, in the local newspaper and delivered directly to residents and merchants in the affected neighborhoods. At the meeting, staff explained the methodology of the reassessment and the findings of the two Registered Consulting Arborists who also attended the meeting. Staff's presentation also addressed the timeline for removals, discussed replacement criteria for the streets that do not have designated replacement species and proposed potential replacement species. In addition, staff is exploring the parameters of other. long-term and far-reaching avenues to educate the public regarding proper maintenance standards. One of these options is a long range master plan, that would be adopted by Council and would serve as a document where practices and policies are clearly defined and formally presented to the public. Additionally, staff is researching and formulating options for an urban forestry commission or task force and will present recommendations to Council in December. Species Diversity in the Community Forest The Community Forest Management Plan designates specific replacement species oh many streets through the City. Policy 1.5 of the Community Forest Management Plan mandates that the community forest be composed of a diversity of tree species and varied ages within each species. Urban forests, or in this case individual streets which are made up of a few dominant species, run the risk of becoming negatively affected by a species specific insect or disease epidemic that would severely impact the forest. That said, when designating street trees, it is particularly important that there are never too many trees of one species in a single area or throughout the city. To provide some background on the importance of species diversity, the loss of .the American elm (ulmus americana) to Dutch elm disease, which began in the 1930's and lasted well into the. 1970's taught urban foresters the importance of species diversity. 10 Because elms were so prevalently planted, their demise left gaping holes in urban forests throughout the country. Of late, this has been the case in Michigan and its neighboring states where the emerald ash borer is now killing thousands of ash trees. Similar occurrences have recently taken place in Southern California -the infestation of the lerp psyllid has killed thousands of eucalyptus trees and cost local cities millions of dollars. Prior to the lerp psyllid, eucalyptus longhorned beetle infestations of eucalyptus trees occurred in the 1980's and in the 1970's, bark beetles infestation led to the demise of thousands of pine trees in the 1970's. Locally, Santa Monica has begun to experience the demise of large stands of Canary Island date palms throughout the City due to a specific pathogen. Although the threat of known and established pathogens can be predicted and prepared for, the potential exists for unknown new pests to invade Southern California. Twenty years ago the eucalyptus tree was thought to be virtually pest free; however, in the past 5 years, over 13 new species of insects now commonly infest eucalyptus trees. One of the newest threats to our region is the Asian longhorned beetle that infests and kills a wide variety of species. Tree Replacements In general, selection of replacement trees is based upon what has been approved within the Community Forest Management Plan or already in existence on a particular street or block, provided it is an appropriate species. In limited areas where a tree cannot be replaced with the-same species, the City uses a species that is better suited for that site and still has similar characteristics and growth habit of the existing species. In cases where a new species is designated, alternative species or an appropriate existing species are also named in order to allow flexibility for the residents and to increase species diversity on a street and still maintain the character of the street. 11 Currently the Community Forest Management Plan does not have replacement species named for the following streets: Street From To Existing Species Area Lincoln Blvd. San Vicente BI. Montana Ave. Carob, Carrotwood, Tristania, 5 blocks Peppermint Willow Cork Oak & Star ine 10 St. San Vicente BI. Montana Ave. Carob, Magnolia, Incense Cedar, 5 blocks Pittosporum, Catalina Ironwood, Evergreen Pear, Pine, Jacaranda, Ficus, Camphor & Eucal tus 12 St. San Vicente BI. Montana Ave. Carob, Cork Oak, Carrotwood, 5 blocks Magnolia, Catalina Ironwood, Bottlebrush & Coral Although all three of these streets have a wide diversity of species, the predominant tree is the carob. tree, which gives these streets a uniform appearance. In an effort to maintain the character of those streets, one species is recommended as the designated replacement species. In the event a resident would like a different species, he or she could be allowed to select one of the existing species as a replacement, provided it is appropriate for that particular site. The suggested replacement species for Lincoln Blvd., 10th Street and 12th Street are: Lincoln Blvd: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifoiia) 10th Street California Pepper (Schinus moue) 12th Street Cork Oak (Quercus suber) Staff has had discussions with residents on these streets who have expressed a strong desire to maintain the character of the street with a uniform look. A meeting with the residents of NOMA would allow staff to present actual specimens of the proposed replacement trees and allow residents to learn about, comment on, and vote on the preferred species for their respective street. The original budget projected 15 gallon. and 24" box replacement trees to be planted. However, at its May 22, 2008 meeting, Council directed staff to identify the largest sized tree to replace the removed trees. 12 Attachment F shows the costs for using 36" box trees and 48" box trees. The largest sized replacement trees planted to date are the 36" box size trees which have average heights ranging from 7 - 10 feet with a canopy spread of 5 - 10 feet depending on the species. The contracted cost for the 36" box size trees is $600 and increased the original projected cost of the project by $135,400, which is available in the current budget. The 48" box size trees have canopies with average heights of 12 - 15 with a spread of 10 - 15 feet depending on the species. The contracted cost for 48" box size trees is $1,700, which increased the original projected cost of the project by $397,200. Residents have been presented the option of planting a 48" box tree, if there is sufficient grow space to accommodate this size tree, by paying $1,100 -the cost difference between the 36" box tree and the 48" box tree. Replacement planting has been completed in sites where a designated replacement species is named in the Community Forest Management Plan. To date,. 95 carobs have been replaced with 36" box trees. These trees have replaced trees with risk ratings of 10 and above. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The FY08-09 budget includes $135,400 within account number 01576.555010 for the 36" box size replacement trees. Prepared by: Walt Warriner, Community Forest & Public Landscape Superintendent Carlos Collard, Sr. Administrative Analyst Approved: Forwarded to Council: Maintenance 13 Attachment A: ISA Hazard Evaluation Form Attachment B: Modified Evaluation Form Attachment C: List of Priority Removals Attachment D: List of 2"d Phase Removals Attachment E: List of trees identified for specialized pruning & 3'd assessment Attachment F: Carob Replacement Cost Options 14 ' - A Photographic G7u/i~dept}o~the E~vja/l~u/ati~o/n/o~f Hazard Trees inpUrban Areas ~~ ; ~ ~ ~~~G ~liL/iRI! ~VMLiJfiT~Q~ ~~/7r1~ 2nd Edifion SitelAdd€ess: Map/Location: Owner: public bate -- bate of Iasi inspoction;; w private unknown ofher Inspentar. TREE GBAtRgGTERISTICS HAZARD RATING: + + - Failure + Size + Target - Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead f ree iYee #: Spectis: DHH:___ _ #attruaks: ilaigM: Spread:.~___~__ Farm: ©generallysymmetrie ~iminarasymmetry ^majorasymmetry i-?stump sprout ^stag•heatled Grown class:. ~ dominant ^ co-dominant `7 intermediate C~` suppressed t.tvecrawnratio: °%a kgectass: i~lyowg ;semi-mature Li mature ,r:Jover-maturelsenescent Pruning history; __ cro4rn claaped Ci excessively thinnee E~ topped ^ crown raised ~ pollarded v ctovrn reduced ^ flush cuts Ll cabled/braced none ~ multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: ^ specimen. ^ he€itagedtistaric 3 1 wildlife ^ unusual i-i street flee ^ screen E'shade L7 indigenous C7 protected 6y gau: agency ~~~ ~~~~ Euifage ceior: ^ normal ^ chlotatic ~ necrotic Epicarmics7 Y N Drowih ohstrgctians; Foliage dcpsity: Ci normal L~isparse teat s¢e; !J normal L small ^ stakes J wiretties L7 signs IJ cables Annua(shoaigrowth:, F=excellent `]average r"paor TwtgDiebaak? Y N ~€urblpavemerd ~lguards Woundwaad development: excellent ;= average ~ poor C' none L~l other Vigor ctass: __~ excoElent L avoraga L fair [7 poor Rtaidr pastsidisaases: S[TE GQDITIUNS Site Gharanter ~ residence G aammercial C? Industrial ~7 park L7 open space C natural L7 woodlandUorest landscape typo: rte-; parlrvay L raised bed iJ container ~ mound !_' Iawn 'CJ shtuia tiarder CJ wipd break trrigaiton: i_ none _ adequate LHnadequate C~ excessive [~ trunk wettted Reeentsite disturbance? Y N L~t construction r soil disturbance ~? grade dnange f J line clearing 5...7 site alearing % drtpline paved: (3°.fi t0-25% 25-50°,~0 50-75°fa 75-10Q°(° PaVeit181d llfled? Y N 'y°driplinew/iiltsnih 0°f° t0-25°t° 25-5p°!° 50-75°b 75-100°te °f° driplinB grade lowered: 0°'° iQ-25°(0 25-50°.~0 5d-75°(u' 75-1Q0°lo Soil problems: ~ drainage. Cl shatlov+ [-1 compacted ©drpughtj ~ saline =~ alkaline ~ acidic. L~ small votume Ll disease center ^ hjstory otfad ?~l clay J expansive i._1 slope _' aspect: Dbstructians: i` l lights C.l signaga :'~l line-of-sight ~l view i-.I pverhead'lines Cl underground utilities E~traffic C7 adjacent veg. Exposure to wind:. (l single tree !- below canopy C] above canopy ©meortiy exposed ~ avindward; canopy edge. (_~area prone to windthrow i'revailing wind direction: Occurrence of snoav,~cestarms ^ never [J seldom ~ rogulariy ~~~~~ Dse ilndor Tree: 1. i building `...iparking -7traHic C~ pedestrian f i recreation =7landscape ~ ] hardscape -; small features !ml utifitylines Gan target 6e moved? Y N Geri use be restriatod? Y N Dixupanay: ^ occasional use ~-; intermittent use '~ frequent use C.! constant use The {riternational Society of Arboricuhure assumes oo responsihility for conclusions orrecnmmendationsdurived from Use of this form. TREE DEFECTS R80T t1;=fECtSc Suspectroatrot: Y N Mnshroom(i:onktbraeketprasant: Y N #R: Exposed roots: ~ sevi;re i~ moderate '~] EOw uadermtned: 1= severe ~} inodorate ~] low RaoCproned: _ -..: distance #rom think Rdot area aitucfed: °.'o Buttress wounded: Y N tNhea: _ Restriafedroatarea: t-lsevero C~~moderate ~..ilovu PofentiaF#orroottaiCure: ~severa Gtmaderate ^#aw LEAAt: ___ _ deg. from vortical C nature( ~ unnaturaE `~ self-corrected Soi(heaving: Y N Decap is plane of #eaa: Y N Rogts 6rakaa Y td Sbil cracking: Y N Gompandd#pg factors: t.earrsevertty: CF#OfNNDEFEGTS: indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe; m _ mndarato,l= Igtiv} C~! severe Ca] moderate [~a~w - tIEFECT . RQf37 CRQWN TRtINtf SCAEFOL~S BRANCHES _ - Poorta er ---- _ _ Bow; s4vee Godominantsitorks MuIPi [e attachments Includad6ark _ _ _---- - Excossiue end t+raight Gracks~s fits Han ers GirdEin - ---.~ Wounds,'seam pscay _ ---- -- - Caul Conkslmusttrnotnslbracket --- Bleedin 'sa hnv.F - - ---- Loose,~eracked bark Nestln nolePoee hive ---- Qeadwoodlstubs Borars!tarmites!antS -.._._,...e..,~_~_ .-__~__ Cankersi ahs?burls' Previads failure HAZA€~~ RATING Traepan most (ikeiy to fa#I: Failure pofaupal # -iowj 2 medium; 3 high; 4 severe:. Inspeciian period:. ___ annna[_____~__ aiannual _ other Size otpart: 1 - <6" (15 chi); 2 - B-i8" (15-45 cm}; Failure Patsntiat+ Siza otParf+ Target Rating -Hazard R2ting 3 -1&3g"{45-75 cm); 4 --y."EY' (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - ocrasianal use; 2 intsrmittent use' + . --__---- } ...-..._.._._._ 3 - treguent. use 4 -constant use HAZAHG A~ATEIEE~T Prune. i r remove defeehv2 part = ..reduce end woighi ~ crown clown ~ttiin ~ raise canopy ~ crown reduce Cl restructure f7 shape Cab#etBrace: __w.-.--_.___ [nspeatfurihec L~rooYsrawn f~ldocay ,~aoria# Clmonitar Remove tree; Y N Rep#aca? Y N Move target. Y N 6fher. Effect an ad{aceni trees: ^ none r evalaate RottfCaation: ::v= ovrner = €nana9er G governing agency Elate: Gtl~II~E~STS Tag # TREEHAlABOEI/ALUAT/ONfOBM Attachment s Rev: 07/16/2008 8:23 AM Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment C Priority Removals Page 1 of 4 ~ U) ADDRESS Tag No. DBH HortSCience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE9 MLF TARG a a LL N N Q F j ~ > a U N N W LL' 816 10ST' 704 18 ~ pobr form & sVUCI(ffe; leans BW:Irfng trunk wound'on (ensianj Vert. wound on W side (tension side) severely tlecayed Poor Whole tree Parktgg P 3 3 3 g= -4 sldi; sounds decayetl .: Bleeding is probably Phytophthora. Flattenetl trunk. 9+ - Remove ASAP: Hisl, of breakage. 2, } 32d 10ST. 70& ',3A Codominant trunks (~ 7 $, g' peginning to crack Q 6: bleedng Branch east sltle Is cracking. History of breakage. Bleetlmg is Pdor Qrahch , Parking .g 4, ~, 8 ,g ' 11 on_low,er trpnh IookE IJr'4 Rhylophthp)a; braACh {ajlure; oae- ', probably Phytophthora. Tree should be removetl ASAP (9y -, anal tlecay. Remove ASAP. Still a smell tree Very poor Whola lcee Qnvevy y 1 q 2 '2 8 -9 P woultl be minimal if it were to fail. .. roots. Tree is in decline. Bark is "checking ~ , ;Pant . ~ Whoig Sree ~: ParKng f P' ~ $ ~ 2 ~ $ ~ 13 ":~ -2 aprion. east antl are tlecayetl on all ave basal tlecay has untlerminetl entire base. Small Uee not cause much tlamage. Remove soon never the less. roots pmnetl. Decay on top of heavy limb to N. liate risk coultl be mitigated by weight reduction on N- limbs. Decay on some roots. cavity encompasses most of trunk base. uu ~oaommam [runrcsrv a, i nor¢omai wim aeaa area, (m DBCay in base. Voitls in ground below roots. Also Very poor Heavy Ja(eral Parking 12 3 2 3 ~ 8 -6 attachment small Ganotlerma @ base on E very lhm canopy declining top and decay al attachment of major co dom brahch 1{ '.. This one increased to size 3 and HR. 9 -remove sooner Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment C Priority Removals Page 2 of 4 ADDRESS Tag DBH N HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arboris[s VIA/LIFE? MLF TARG o LL w h j °c i a rn o. ca N w ru ~ 1 I 225 125TI -.827 15 Multiple altachmebt5 @ 9' Ganodetma @ base onN : Suspect restricted root ball -likely reason for long term : Poor Whole tree Parking 3 3 :' 2 3 8'. -9 ' sub-par growth. Lots of dieback but small tree with shorter low density limbs. Needs to be removed but failure not likely without winter storms. 2 i 225 12ST I82@ 30 Multiple attachments @ 15' old conk on pruning wound Decline is eminant but immetlia[e failure unlikely. Most severe Poor Whole tree Parking 2 2 4 3 9 s -9 extensive twig dietiack branch failde winter conditions could cause whole tree failure. Note History '. of limb splitting from co-doms with includetl bark. 1 r 233 12ST, '831 16 Multiple attachments ~ 6 large basal wound on NE Target listed as parking but tree leans opposite tlirection FP Popr Whole tree Parking 3 3 2 3 e . 0 d: higher in storm. HR of 7. <._ <~~ <.,,. :o.,< za npye cav ry ~, vase on e. cogominanr [runtts L apx, 1[ ': Ma1or cavity on south east of base may be internally mitigated ;Poor Wh81e tree Street 2 3 `3 2 @..: _ 2 4 by mounding of roots on west side by street. Failure of tree more likely in winter storm but hollow at base with tlense crown cannot be overlooketl. Good canditlate for removal. Tree is '.. supported by outlet lateral roots. Center of buttress is 1 ' 524 72$T. y15 22 Mos[ of crown failed leans W wittrbase ou(side tlnpline, Tree leans extensively antl had major break. Crown is sparce Very poor Whole tree $~tlevialk 2 4 :3 2 B' -1 bleetling d and appears to be declining. Owner ready for new tree 1 '. 711 125T'. 925 20 Thin canopy, Gandderma on N 'Declining. Probably a 1st round tree. Poor Whole tree Parkihe 2 3 I3 3 9 '. -9 now. -9 pruned. Two stem cavities. Huge basal cavity Very pool ~ .Whole trQe ~ Pa(bng' ' 1 4 2 ' 1- 9 4 side. Remove ASAP. Bark is cracking on mom , jai Dense canopy; +. tx I tN51vE decay with associated cracking of bark ~, (tlessication of woetl). "Bees in cavity ('Note to removal crew). _. Recently pruned (which retluced the risk of failure) but should '. be schudeuletl for removal. N, I Bark cracking on trunk antl limbs. Ganodetma evitlent. History ' of failure. Remove now-small tree. Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment C Priority Removals Page 3 of 4 w ADDRESS No DBH HortSCience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE2 MLF TARG v ~ LL ti F ~ > ul H W U a, 1 `. 1649 FRANKLIN ST 1143 q3 Large wound on'E: from tool pruning, sountletl sdlitl' 7. Severe root pruning on large tree. Top is losing vigor Lots of ;Mdtlerate Branch Parking 3 3 d 3 3 9'. -6 cotlom,nant lrunks',@ 8 water in small planting strip. Defnitely neetl pruning to retluce '. weight before storms. 1 1744 FRANKLIN ST 1152 23 3 did Ganoderma @ base root prtihed thin canopy Itlecllning Pruning may extend time although Ganotlerma on base next Very poor Whole tree Sitlewalk 2 4 !3 2 9 ' 2 to large tree to be removed. Limb over road is cancernmg 2 1102 HILL ST 1223 15 On Hill' prunetl hard lust epicormie shoots declining: basal '., Lots o1 decay in base. Remove sooner. Uerv Door Stem Yard atea 2 3 '2 3 e -19 root prunetl. Remove soon. FP - 4 antl HR - 9. Narrow planter and root pruned. Dying -not an remove now but soon. over roatl this decay and warrants pruning. This may prompt quicker removal. soon. Derma. in easy mooerare aecnne. cracxs on oottor on east sitle. Lower laterals shoultl be mitigated by ig --> this summer I'I -5 Si'I -6 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment C - Priority Removals Page 4 of 4 rn ADDRESS Tag No DBH HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIAILIFE? MLF TARG ~ ~ LL y Q g ~ a m c c > a O t - N m W K t 498 LINCOLN BLVD 1080 26 S"gaflpltl bYanoh fajlure~ hfhng sidevialk but buttreas on W ?' i Recent B" diameter branoh failure south sitle. Probably sutlden boo! Whole tree ' PaiKng 3 2 S3 3 8~: 6 decayed. leans E ! ; limb tlrop. Base is tlry (good thing). May continue to shetl limbs. Time to remove (is now a "9"). 2 f 1665 MAIkf S7 1322 25 N.'parking lot strong lean S extensive tlecay @ tiase N. sttle' Big heavy leaning tree with tlecay in roots antl trunk. Warrants Very Roor Whole tree Sitlewalk 2 4 3 2 9 -10 ofkrown thin vntlilwig tlieback pruning or removal. Big tree at city hall. 6 .. 1128 OCEAN PARK 1294 17 Twig dieback basal wounds trunk cawty old Ganotlerma. Lots of decay in lower trunk -remove now. Very Roor Whale tree Trzffc 2 3 '.2 4 9'. -7 BLVD 1 1221 OCEAN PARK i301 g Long trunk wound on 5 with Laehporus conk' thin canopy '. Very small but rot in trunk at 5' will get worse, soft now Poor Whole tree Traffic 2 3 '@ 4 9' -10 BLVD. remove. 2 ". 1802 OCEAN PARK 1317 20 Strong but partly corrected lean to SE ~ base @ edge of '. Leaning tree that was heavily prunetl with no room for root Very poor Whole free Sitlewalk 3 3 ':3 2 B II t 8LV0' r dripline tlecay 'base on NW growth. Remove -net much benefit here at all risk. ASAP -negatives shoultl elevate this tree to close to galives on this page shoultl elevate this tree close to a "10." lumn of tlecay on north side. lying. Sunburnetl (therefore tlecayetl) branches. Negatives this page shoultl elevate this tree close to a "10:' Remove (9+). rch on north v Johnny 6/19. on noun sloe is ettenswe ana dly began by root pruning). Remove Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals - Page 1 of 16 N uieoaccrc in crown. contlominant stems. Could be mitigated by pruning, but is so mis-shapen it will look clumsy. Health is defniiely declining. Poor branch attachments. Bacterial wetwood. Decayed west side has been dead for some time and is not "punky." Bark is pealing. Decay on east side. Decayed roots on north and east sides. Ganoderma lucidum fruiting body west side. Multiple attachments with decay. History of breakage. Plentiful water sprouts and basal sackers. Basal decay east side. Root decay north side: ferma conks west side. Bast Multiple branch attachments. ins into street. Old branch tear (histc akage). Basal wound west side (has entifious roots though). posed and decayed roots on west side west. west side. Fairly small tree. stems, but not included bark. i in trunk east side. No DBH HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/uFE7 MLF TARG o u w ~ ~ N w 701 26 C g g odommant tnmks Q 5' 1 vel{iG$' 1 bpwed N but Sprouting due to recent toppin North facto Moderate 6owea stem 'Padang a 4 z s a 1' taros upn~ht with IptErnal craok; Nigh clown. ~ branch has vertical internal crack. High crown. I column of tlecay on south side trunk a History of breakage. Dieback in crown. Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals Page 2 of 16 y cut far sidewalk and driveway. Dieback. Ganooerma conks (new and old) on west sitle. Codominant stems at 15.' Should total out to be less than an 8. South side trunk has long, vertical column of dec Tree, although small, should be removed due to extensive decay idtrunk. Gindling root. Vltl nrancn failure on south sitle. Sunken area east side at base, is also direction of lean. Small tree (relatively) but should be removed eventually. Ganoderma. Bleeding is probably Phytophthora. Large roots cut for new sidewalk. Target rating changed from 1 to 2. FP = 9+, Large branch to SE at risk. Ganoderma conks (manvl. Multiple attachments Ganoderma conks (many). Sparse crown on Extensive decay. canopy. Lean to Main stem bows to west. aver street. Column of tlecay S side trunk. Lost 5" branch recently. Branch overhanging street should be drawn back to reduce risk; entire tree could wait. Could reduce HP with pmning yat epicormics likely from root related problems or broken limbs. Above epicormics -can't see tops of limbs. 0 VIA/LIFE?. MLF TARG ZO LL ~N/! H j °c j ~ ~ y~ N W Tag DBH I HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists No. Carob Tree Replacement Project AttachmentD ADDRESS Nog DBH HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE7 o MLF 7ARG o u LL w ~ ~ w rn N w A z z a1s 1zSP aas 11a Decayed' Ganoderma an SE dodominant trunks ? Small tree.. Will likely require severe storm to fail Poor whole tree!" Parkins '. z s 2 3. s. m @ 5'. Probably long-term problem but not today. FP 2 `: but could. be considered FP3 due to conks. 1 332 12s7 e5s ; za Codominant trunks @ T; separating; thin canopy Declining tree with separating co-dbms right or Poor stanch Parkins '.. 2 s z a' a e a bleeding; tmnk decay ! severe pruning. Very heavy over street. swing on limb. Not much flare at base. Soil ided on side opposite lean -Ganoderma is on ~ression side. failed limb over sidewal. Also, tree under- exlreme pmning after failure. Pruning could rte and improve balance. FP 2 / HR 8 after rather than later. Note plants below. srape/hardscape but good form. Can likely 6 months. Secondary Removals Page 3 Of 16 -s er walkway on south side. Root crown covered Poor Whole free: sidewalk z a a z a ~ o Vinca. Lots of ozzing at pruning cuts. 2nd or round R. i r, ~< 4ooommanr crunKSL a' witn cavity (ar attaonment; Mator ce-oom stems at 4' with epicormics growing coot i r stem smewaik z s s z e: -~ thin canopy twig djeback. out of crotch (hides crotch). Lots of flowers at base and well-irrigated. Dieback in top. Wounds on 2 trunk on south side. Small dead/decaying limb. 1 sta 12s7 sos '. as Leans N codominabt trunks @ 5:' with cavity @ '. educe FP to 2 with pruning on north side. Also very poor N. stem : onveway a a a 2. s 10 attachment. reduce HR to 7. Although creates very large , ts. Heavy aver parking. Ganoderma but tree. Late neM round. 1 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals ' - Page 4 of 16 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals ' - - Page 5of i6 ADDRESS y Tag DBH HortSCience, Inc. COMMENT No Comments from Consulting Arborists VIAILIFE? MLF TARG z n. N ¢ u a r- ~ ~ a ~ c « ' . u N w 1 242 17ST 1183 '; 1$ Laetlparus on Crunk:iwig diebaGk : ! Sulphur fungus an main stem at 12.' History of Very Root .Whole tree! $tdeW3lk ,' 2 3 3 2' e J 5 '. breakage. Column of decay south side. Could be '. managed by pruning. 1 , 2744 1757 1194' ' 15 ~ Very Shin Can6py. , ~ ` Large column o(decay on west side. Roor VYhRIe tree Parking ', 2 3~ 2 , 3' 'gi -3 1' 279s n$T 11e5 94 ReClinmg;2wig diebaCh, Laet(porus Conk on frank ..- In decline but removal could wait. Yerypoo~ whole p'eei Farkmg - . 2 p. ~; . a~ 8 ` -e 2 ~ -27os~ ~ 1ZST , ' 1197; ; 23 Root pfuned'with bowl cavitl4s; codpminant trunks '. ~~ Squirrel or rodent activity is causing some dieback. ~ PQor . Wheie.trge_ ' Parkng 2 3 3 a ~ '. s ' ~ .~ '° '' , @ S:: ~ -~~. ~~ ~. ~ , " ! Basal cavity on NW side, root pruned. Soil fairly ,~, '.. dry. Removal could be delayed. ~ " ' z' 2720 ?75T . ~ `rise ' 24 ~ COdoniinaht 4runke @ fx'; beljed, Laetiporus dunk = Old pin through trunk at 4' Sulfur Fungus in (large) Ven/poo} 'Whole tree , $tdewalk . ~ 2, 3 a '2 a ; -s on pruning wound; thin-canopy. i '. wounds. Bark is cracking on the south side. a. ' 27ZO- 1757 11et, ,20 ~ Long trunk wound=gp W ;,frdm'root pr4ned7; thi7i ! Tree is dying. Bark is cracking on many of the very poor Who{e,tree sldewelk ~ ' 2 3 ~ ? 9 ! 2 canopy', ~ ; ~ :. scaffolds. Long column of decay on north west side of trunk. 2 . 2727 17$7 ~ ~ 1182; .2~ , ASymmetrldfornt, rOPt pnlned 4n 2 SCdeS.'"~ ~' ` :. ~ Tree has recently had Crown reduction whichhas s' Poor ;,, . Whola flee. Yard area,. 3 3 3 'a, 8: 7 : decreased its risk. Root pruned sidewalk and curb . ~ ~ ~ : and gutter. Tree should come out but removal ; ' ' s ~ .. ; '. ~ : . '... a::; '~ .: could wait. ; : _. . , 2 , 2sg4 r t7sz -~ ~ ~ ,-f 1ss 9, _ ~ 4n j7th; large basal,eavitios ,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Basal decay is severe. FP only 8 because size of ;very Roo( Whoie'tree, ~ $iaewaik~ ; 1 A 2 2 ~ a~~~ -a ' ' .~ ~ ~ ~~~`'~ ~ ~ ~ ` , tree (small). Homeowner is oool about these -. removals. F I E 3 ~ ~ I i I I v~~ E° ~~E I°~ E ~E'I ~ 1 ! . I I~ _ ~ . ~ .. _ ~ .. ~ I „ I ~ ~ it3' E ~' ~ ; ~ ~ ~fEl ~ ~~i I 1 ~ 2a2s 2ss7 ; 115s 22 Codq(J,(ln~nt franks ~a ,8' Wlfh inclUtlCd bark; roo3, z R oot pruned 2 sides. Included bark in codommant Pew ~ Whole Iron: . ,Parlong .' : 3 3 , 2 g; g; 1 pruned!! '. stems. Decay column on trunk on east side. z. 2420 29$1' ~ ~ , ,d 1191 ~ ~ 21 ~~ ~ ~ Root pruned on 2 sides; trunk decd . ~ X ~ ~ ' 't Basal cavil be innin to develo west side. Root Y 9 9 P ~ Poor W ole'tree ~ h ~ . P ~ arlSin9 ' 3. ,3 3 .3: 9 e . , .:, .. ,~ pruning 2 sides. Mechanical injuries east-facing lateral with decay. Trunk decay west side with '. termites Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals Page 6 of 16 h (ADDRESS I No. Deb HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Z a N¢~ a m c Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE? MLF TARG U a va F ~ r w N sive decay in trunk and root. Root disease. ~ very poor Wnole uee- Sidewalk ;'.. z a a 2 s ,I. -a No twig tllebacK as reported in'07. Main crotch is problematic (old wounds). History of breakage.. Internal crack south side. Flattened areas throughout crown History of breakage. Limbs have been lightened but wood is still big and heavy. Root pruned 2 sides. Crown reduced fairly recently. vvound tram old tear exentls into base. Basal decay north side is fairly exensive (photo). ing detects:.1) Uecay in old tear lateral @ 12' 2) Basal decay west side. diameter lateral Facing east should be removed ASAP, if not the whole tree (some cracking on other tree branches) Lots of shoots but can't tell why -previous report says extensive pruning. Apprears to be decay next round. next round. can wait until next round. until ee in small planter. Wounds in base but could ve next round. Definitely in decline. Likely root loss. s Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals ' - - Page 7 of 16 - N (ADDRESS No DBH HortSCience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE? MLF " TARG o LL w F ~ H w ~«`- . rn ~ _ 1 14n8 HILL ST . 1241; 16 Couldrit be worse ` very poor Whole tree. Parking E 1 4 2 a 9'. -7 "' ^~~~ ° ~ 1G9" t a Uecllring twig dleback bowed S; r lots of epicormics. Likely from root pruning. Could Poor = wnole tree' Parking ! ', z z s a a - _ t } wait until neM round. " t tall Hlu 5T ': tzaz 12 Leans'.SE.' basal wounds < Small tree in poor conditioin, could wait until next very poor whole tree . Parkins t a z a s -s round. In decline FP 3 HR 8 1 tazl HILL sr tzas 16 Failing @ base to S. '. Short, leaning tree with lots of shoots. Appears to very poor whole vea. Parking ' :, z a z a' 9 : 2 have been this way for a while. Root pruning -- " warrants removal. t tzz MILL sT t2sY 22 Twig dleback large"cavity low on''.trunk - . Tree is in decline. Also co-doms. Size increases Poor Whole tree Parking a 3 a a s I -a ,! HR to 9 but could wait until next round ;back in top of crown; in early decline. No gns" of root rot. Could be managed for now by Inificant lightening of branch ends, until removal hedule comes around. early decline. Could be managed by pruning tit it comes up on the removal schedule. if breakage. Week barrio and other gas exchange. -1 z I Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals Page 8 of 16 W ADDRESS w Tag No DBH HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists vlA/uFE? MLF TARG z a N Q~ ~ a A c c > a . o U n m ~ ~ ~ W K aog LINCOLN 6LVD - lobs ; 46 Ganoderma on N ; rjiultiple attachments @ 8" Wath 4 Ganoderman (old). Bees in center crotch. Multiple very-poo"r - Whole neat Sidewalk ~ z s m' Si .e". s ' bees Ir cavity @ attachment, -. branch attachments. Remove south east facing branch ai the very least. Careful of bees. ban i better examine main crotch when south east 1" 41J' 41NCRLN Ufvp - 1o7L ? 1g' Ganodbrma@basepsiE; multiple attachmeM"s @# Ganoderma (old). Bleeding. 'door ~ Whole trees .Sidewaik - !a a a z: sl s last of the 8's for this removal. I ~ Poar ~' -I ,whole tree: I Packing ~} ; I z I a 18= I s'43 1 ory of breakage. Bleeding. Somedecay in Pool ! Whole tree;; -Parking a z a ~ s a ". s :r trunk. Could be managed by pruning until the of the B's. Ganoderma @ base. Tree is in decline. ,Poor ,Whole tree! - Sidewalk j'z a~ a a', a -, 1 tlerma (oltl and new). Dieback. Lateral to very poet ' ~Wholq o-ee Parking z, a' a. 3 s -a west could pull out. ,, , e flux. Bleetling (Phytophthora). Old tree in an Modaraie Whole tree; patking ', 3 z 3 .a a 1 -irrigated setting -although no signs of root rot ' ~' should eventually be removed. Could be aged for now by pruning over street. , , ,,, and large Ganoderma. Lean to west Could Poor-!y.I~Whole tree„I ,Parklne~", ~ .a, a S~ -s;.. a until the last part of the 9's are removed Dieback. I - .Poor .: I,,.Branoa I 'Parking ;I a l 3 12 I'a l ar,( -6 na lucitlum at base. Sulfur fungus in old ;vary poet ~, Whote tree ,Parking,,' 2 'a 2 7 a. o Bark checking. , nevertheless. tree. Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals Page 9 of 16 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment o secondary Removals ' Page 10 of i6 n (ADDRESS No DBH HortSciende, Inc. COMMENT Comments From Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE? MLF TARG o LL y F o H w U N 8 1128 QCEAN PARK 1296 13 Extensme twig dletiack; Lust poor Largely dead/dying. Remove. Very small planter Very poor Whole tree'. Traffic ''. 1 3 2 4'.. e p -5 ~ ~ CX[enslVe [Wig plebaCK; leans t.". :Small leaning tree. Can wait IO be removed but Very poor Whole tree': Traffc '. 2 3 2 a 9" -5 sLVO :eventually, wound in base will be issue. Prior report indicate low FP of 2. 2 1221 OpEAN PARK 1302 11 Nice canopy corrected lean S ;Squatty tree with low FP. Prune to mitigate very Motlerale Whole tree'. Street 4 2 3 4 6'. 3 aLVO ,,dry soil -likely cause of stress along with others in '; row. attachments L ; LlKely stressetl from root pruning. Tree needs pruning and could prolong need for removal. Size of Dart is 2 and HR is 8. isive decay column in trunk. Will warrant val. Not much room for root growth. Small . could wait until next round. ' Ganoderma at base. Tree is ~rtured -small, shoultl remove but could be due to small stature. Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals - Page 11 of 16 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals ' - Page 12 of 16 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals ' - Page 13 of i6 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals Page 14 of 16 Carob Tree Replacement Project attachment D secondary Removals Page 15 of 16 Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment D Secondary Removals - Page 16 of 16 rn ADDRE SS Tag No DBH HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE? MLF TARG LL N ~ ~ ' u rn ~ r w a 112e BLVD N PnRK 1295 17 Twig dieback multiple attachments @ 7 ,basal Stress from root pruning. Low FP -High HR is due Poor ' wnole nee. traffic 2 z z a. a `' I~'!!tl iii wounds to target. Pruning could prolong tree's life but ~ at~,E°~ IIi ~l;i AP ~~ EE doesn't add much. E t ~ii tt[~6~~ ~s t, t Ett ttrt~tlI t, EtE J ~itEtt PEIIi P {~~f~I NG`R~fir~ I~E Nt ~IpA,T ~~ri19 131e~~~,ncarho ?{rl~t 'fes'~t~ r mrptifdam Yrse~ha$ :wd'un ndld' ""'s$r sis f 4R~ ~ P~' ~ Pri ~h~ ~~~" f R ~ ~ ~ w Est #~ ~I~e ~ t~ a9~ §Itl trDn~ F Sh ~rc~5 ¢td ~ t',tl~ '~`' , ,.. ~ t ,, ~, ' ~ , . ~ l~ ~~.C7~~~ , ;t .. f~UAh! . ~ jO~tS 1 t , t.. ,.-: ~ : ,,.~: ,.. _ ::,, i ~ .. . ,:.a . t t , , :. ,: ,l : ~ t .., ~r'It~on!A!esFleaderla Sj Is{~Ij{ushd[~~~QStsasEl~yy'p~E~tt',, ~Q~n~s`v'st+l~}j~~?~;a!1~II;t~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ,:~I e~ yR ~ y r ~~ ~ ~ ::E 4 i t:: I E :~ ~r- ~ 3 III I t: ( ~, t . . t .; , .. M R t . .I i I :I I i ~ t t ~ I I ': ( I ~ ' I t I t ~' ~ ~ , t .4E II 1 , Y t _ tI t E t E~ i YI : ' E . :~i i ~ ;t'i~t It t~ ', II t .i ti tt: tE E i 'I I ~:tt i ' tt S;. ii ~ ° i l it t :~ EI t( : i e .n~ : j~. .,.,, i~ :.,,..:.. i ,. t I .... t (F . i t, 1 I I .. t t , I,I, I t Ii t I ..,.em t. (I ., . It Et E, e i L : : e _ tE e: 3 : : f ( t ~ ~ .i ~ i , t E' . . . t , . . .,. . e. .. . , : . o....: .., ,v u :. ... .. i _,., ,,, .: , .E•I i (. ... 2 1212 N PARK 1298 I 20 Twig dieback basal wounds Tree attempting to recover from root pruning Very Poor Whole (reel Traffic 2 2 3 4'. 9 tt~ } j I' ~ • BLVD . large leaves Extent of root pruning will likely . h ' p~ , l l'6E 3~'y ¢j~ warrant eventual removal. Better than previous , ~S a t rl ~ °~U adjacent trees FP is 2 on prior report . r a i t iI J 6Ifi 1j ~4 IP ~YJI. ll ~ `€G k~~~'Ql~ ~~ NL} ~l'T y~ F~~,~} I l t ~ t: a i a i s i t i l. (~ t i t ii t {' ;E,ii : I r n E I ' I l , { t t rait~'4, w 3~ ry , ~. I z fl ., ~ ,.1, { tt t.. nn ~Q~SE ~ , R~~'~ CQ ~~ I it t. iI ~i !.. i it t,,:~ i t E ~i.t. .91 a. i '(~~ I Y t: t t ! I i I ' ,.(~ i Ei I: u i (,{it ~ ~ : t I s Y 1 , Y tl ._ll~ d Y t ((i q Y t i i ) I ' t f Y i ~.r, I t t i t ( t ;~ i i I ~ t ~ ~ ~ i E ( ~ Y .i i t Ii ' , ::~r t t t t~ I ~ i ' . Eiti t iy t ; I .'tY .Y ~ 31 i tl;: i Ili t E~ L ' hi ~i ~ ~ i i ., j . E t t i i I ( ~ t t : ( { { t : t 1 t t ~ ....v. , rS.. I:, ,,;.;: i. t .„t'm .Et .: ., ,,,, .i. :.:,i(: ,.,:: .:I3 , o ri i i , i,: ,~ ~!~{ Y , 7 ~~~ 'i Y ~ ;~ , I t ~ L , t ~1 .. . . .. . , ,, .... ........ , . , . , .._„i !. :, ,,, ,. i, 6 ... Carob Tree Replacement Project Attachment E 3rd review -Specialty Pruning Page 1 of 1 - ADDRESS Tag N DBH HortScience, Inc. COMMENT Comments from Consulting Arborists VIA/LIFE4 MLF TARG o ~ LL N a ~ °c > m w o O D 'A ~' w n w K 1 854 9PST; 7@1 26 Leans SE'to skeet^ nice form „ Gall south side is aot a maior defect. Potential hazartls could Mptlerate Wfiole tree Rarkhg $ 2 3 ~ 3 8 " 13 be mitigated by pruning, especially over 10th SL pruning to reduce failure potential. FP - 7. im i nno Z/ mmnple attachments ~m 7 heavy lateral Omb wdh cavM1y on HR of 9 can be reduced to 7 with pruning of large obtrusive 20 Poor Heavy lateral Parking 9 4 2 3 9 upper surtace limb, but will result in very large tlecay column. Multiple co branch tloms with includetl bark at 12' -also warrants pruning pruning cuts. mce weign[ sz is z (large scattoms). Pruning can to 6. Note: Shallow PVC line near tree. east side. Suspect wootl degratlation in interior of base. canopy. can Coultl be managed by pruning (reduction of entl weight) to removal Prune this one FP is 2. Small tree. HR is high tlue to targ street retluce FP of SZ tlown to 2 or Attachement F: Carob Replacement Cost Options ~ _ ~ Parkway ~ ~- = Street _ Prom To ~ Width _ Qtya 48" eox Est. Cos[g 36" Box: Est Costm 1 $ 600- 1 nte. _.-- 'r _ , _ _ $ 13800 0th St IMOntana (Wilshire 11' 26''`$ _ 1700 1 $ 44200$ 600 $ 15800 $ c _ I ` _ ~-_ $ 3 400 '1 $ 600 $ 1 200 . San Vicente MOntana II ' 4 ~ 68 000 _$ 800 $ 24 000 ; 14th St r _ I 12' ~ 3 a $ ~ 1 700 $ 5 100 ,~$ 600 $ 1 800 " 15th St San Vicente (Montana 1T 7~ $ 1,700 , $ 11900 € $ 600 $ 4200 _ 0 15th St ' ~. 12' ~ 1 ~ $ 1 700 I $ 1 700 ~ $ 600 $ 600 ~ 1 ` 16th St 1 San Vicente IMOntana 1T . 22 ~' $ 1,700 $ 37400 = $ 600 1 $ 13200 - _._ 76th St - -___ _ T .m 2 $ 1,700 $ 3400 ~ $ 600 ~ $ 1 200 _ _ 'ti " 17th St Ocean Park Bivd (Pier Ave T 15 ~ $ 1 700 $__. 25 500 ~ $ 600. $ 9,000 :- 1Zth St Washington AVe (California Ave 12' 2 ~ $ 1 700 $ 3,400 ~ $ 600 $ 1 200 29th St i Ocean Park Blvd Pico Blvtl 3' 18 ~ $ 600 i _ ~,__ 10 800 ~ $ _, 600 $ 10 800 ~' Euclid Ave Wllshve _. California Ave _ 11' 1 4' $ 1700 $ u 6800 $ 600 $ 2400 Franklin St _, 'Colorado AVe ~ Nebraska AVe 5' 123 $ 1,700 $ 20400 ~ $ 600 ~ $ 7200 H~II St pith St 21st S[ 3' 37~ $ 800 $ 22200' $ 600{$ 22200= Idaho AVe 1700 block ___ _._- 1800 block 11' 6a$ 1700 $ 10200=$ B- 600$ '-h-.__ 3600; ' $ 3 400 ~ $ 600 $ 1 200 L _ _ - ~ ncoln Blvd San Vicente Ii Montana 12' 35 $ ~' 1,700 i $ 59 500 - $ 600 $ _ 21 000 Clly HaII ____ _ ~ 9' 2~, $_ __ 1700_1 $ 3400 e $ 600 $ 1200 __ , _ ~ ~ ~ P Ocean Park Blvd Lincoln Blvtl 21st St _ n!s 7 30 $ 1 700 $ 51 000 z $ 600 $ 18 000 Pier AVe 118th SI 21st St 3 11 ~. $ 600 $ 6 600 i $ 600 $ 6 600. Washington AVe 15th St 17th St 11 3' $ 17 OO ~ 6100 ° $ 6001 $ 1800 ~ ~y~ Subtotal _ I _ 304 ~ I $ 444 200 ~ $ 182,400 - _ __. ~ ~ Contmgencv for 4 o additional trees 40 ! $ 68 000 ~ $ 68 000 Subtotal 344 ~, $ 512200 ~ 1. $ 250400 . Onginal budget o roiection based on 24" box trees i 1 ~- $ 115 000: _- ~ $ 115 000 Addtional amount needed to accommodate Council direction to plant the largest size trees possible - $ 397 200 1 $ 135 400 `__