Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 0618 CC REG ITEM 09BITEM 01 • $ : Lon s�r-r- 4o o b±n -L vq MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: The Honorable City Council FROM: Mary K. Lindley, Director of Community Services DATE: June 3, 2003 (CC Meeting of June 18, 2003) SUBJECT: Consider Replanting Plan for High Street Pepper Trees SUMMARY In 2000, the City hired an arborist to evaluate the mature Pepper trees on High Street. The evaluation took into consideration the following elements: target zone, failure potential, and size. From these elements, the arborist rates each tree assigning a hazard rating between 1, a tree presenting no hazard conditions, and 10, a tree with serious hazard conditions. The mature Pepper trees on High Street were assigned hazard rating of between 7 and 9. Of those rated, 6 of them had a rating of 9. The Council is being asked to approved the removal of the trees found to have a hazard rating of 9. BACKGROUND The California Pepper Tree (Schinus molle) is native to South America, not California as the name seems to imply. It is a fast growing tree, generally reaching a mature height of approximately 40 feet with an equal crown and root spread. Today, arborist recommend against the use of Pepper trees as a street tree. They are known for invasive surface roots and are generally planted away from streets, sidewalks and curbs; however, this is not the case on High Street. The arborist noted that the trees have been thinned excessively in an effort to keep the branch height low. This was a practices initiated by the County many years af1l�+f1"t The Honorable City Council June 18, 2003 Page 2 ago. As a result, the trees have extensive decay, which results in limb and trunk failure. To mitigate the weakened structure of the trees due to the decay, the City has to continue the practice of excessively thinning the trees to minimize the weight of the branches. In some cases the City has hired a tree maintenance company to fill large hollowed out decayed areas with a foam substance to slow the decay process down. Additionally, the trees are located within the right -of -way along High Street. Approximately half of the dripline area beneath each tree is covered with impervious paving. This condition creates additional stress on the trees. The only other option to removing trees that present hazards to people and property is cabling. Cabling is invasive and should only be performed when absolutely necessary and because it requires an additional ongoing expense. Once a tree is cabled, it should be inspected at least annually, if not more often. The cables will need to be tightened and adjusted as the tree grows. Trees in similar condition and size as those on High Street require extensive cabling, which significantly increases the cost of tree maintenance. Additionally, the use of cables can be unsightly and can make more susceptible to decay and disease where the cable is attached to the tree. For these reasons, the City has never cabled any of its trees, but rather removed them when a tree presents a potential risk that cannot be mitigated by more traditional tree pruning methods. DISCUSSION Staff is requesting approval to immediately remove the six trees that received a hazard rating of 9 in 2000. These trees have been deemed to have a high failure potential. Because they have an active target zone, a limb or scaffold failure could injure someone walking on the sidewalk or damage a car in the street or an adjacent building, it is important that the hazard be mitigated as soon as possible. This project is exempt under the emergency provision of the California Environmental Quality Act. An exemption has been filed. M:\MLindley \Landscp Zones\High St Pepper Trees ccagd.doc The Honorable City Council June 18, 2003 Page 3 The intent is to replace the six trees in locations on High Street, further back behind the sidewalk, where there is more room for mature root system. The exact location of the replacement trees has not been determined yet. The Director of Community Service will coordinate the identification of appropriate locations with the Assistant City Manager and Community Development Director to ensure that future revitalization plans for High Street do not conflict with the replacement trees. Within the next 12 to 24 months, the City should also remove and replace the 18 Pepper trees that received hazard ratings of 8. To mitigate the significant change that will be created when 18 large trees are removed on High Street, the Council may wish to consider removing the trees in two phases: remove 9 in nine months and the remaining 9, nine months later. Similar to the removal plan for the six trees rated 9, the intent is to replant as many trees as is feasible given the existing and future infrastructure and building improvements along High Street. The eventual removal of the all trees that are rated 9 and 8 would leave two large mature trees with ratings of 7 and the smaller replacement trees that were planted in the last 6 to 10 years (most of these are on the north side of High Street) . These trees have a medium failure potential and with continued aggressive maintenance of these trees, they could remain viable for five to ten years more. An option the City Council may wish to consider is to select one of the large mature Pepper trees with a hazard rating 7 or 8 to that appears to have some potential for long -term survival and take extraordinary maintenance measures, such as enlarging its planter area and cabling. Such a tree could serve as a historical landmark. However, the Committee should note that even a Pepper tree growing in hospitable surroundings might only be expected to live sixty to two hundred years. The surroundings on High Street are far from hospitable for a Pepper tree. Despite all of the City's effort, it may not net any significant additional years for any of the subject trees. In addition to the removal of the 6 mature trees, staff plans to remove and replace 2 relatively young trees on the M:\MLindley\Landscp Zones\High St Pepper Trees ccagd.doc The Honorable City Council June 18, 2003 Page 4 north side of High Street that have poorly shaped trunks. This action will prevent future conflicts with structures. STAFF RECODMENDATION Approve the removal of the 6 Pepper trees on High Street with a hazard rating of 9, and direct staff to develop a replanting plan for the 6 trees as well as a removal and replanting plan for the 18 trees with a hazard rating of 8. M:\MLindley \Landscp Zones\High St Pepper Trees ccagd.doc C) A"t" Al. .. �e 'If A. e6. 1 C L u r DECEMBER 18. 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA HIGH STREET TREE STUDY Moorpark, California INTRODUCTION This High Street Tree Study was prepared at the request of Ms. Mary Lindley of the City of Moorpark. High Street is generally deemed the center of historic downtown Moorpark. Robert W. Poindexter laid out the initial streets of the city at the turn of the century, around 1900. He planted a number of California Pepper Trees along what is now the High Street right -of -way. A sign located on the south side of the street commemorates the event, as follows: Moorpark California Pepper Trees Planted 1900 by Robert Poindexter Ventura County Landmark #72 Identification by Moorpark Historical Society The now stately California Pepper Trees lining High Street are now approximately one hundred years old. They have suffered in various ways from the ever - evolving development of High Street over the years. It is truly amazing that they still exist today, especially given the fact that the average life of a street tree surrounded by pavement in the United States is only seven years. Even trees located in typical narrow parkway planters only live to an average age of thirty -two years. Trees in more hospitable surroundings might otherwise be expected to have a lifespan from sixty to two hundred years. Given the historic status of the trees, the City of Moorpark desires to promote their health and maintain the trees for as long as public safety can be assured. Tree cabling is one technique that can be used to increase the safety of and extend the life of a historic specimen. The City has a policy against cabling trees given the complications and costs that can arise. Therefore, it has been recognized that the trees will eventually need to be removed and replaced. This Tree Study documents the present condition of the trees and provides a relative hazard analysis. Recommendations are provided to improve the current health and safety of the trees. A phasing program for removal of the trees is also presented. This report is intended to provide the City Council and concerned citizens with tools to make informed decisions with respect to the High Street California Pepper Trees. The report was prepared in accordance with standards of the International Society of Arboriculture. IHIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK W PAGE 1 F� F3. r u I C DECEMBER 18, 2000 SCOPE OF WORK KAY J. GREELEY, ISA The scope of work included a ground field observation of the cultural and physical condition of twenty -six (26) mature California Pepper Trees on December 12th and December 13th, 2000. Data was recorded with respect to tree characteristics, tree health, site conditions, target, tree defects, hazard rating, and hazard abatement. A photograph was taken of each tree to record its condition at the time. These photographs are included in Appendix A. Following the field observations, data with respect to the trees was collated and ' compared. Based upon this information, a short -term and long -term evaluation, maintenance and removal program was developed for the subject trees. As stated in the Introduction, this information is intended to provide the City Council and concerned citizens with tools to make informed decisions with respect to the California Pepper Trees. I TREE CHARACTERISTICS ' Each of the subject trees is Schinus molle, commonly known as California Pepper Tree. Despite its name, the California Pepper Tree is native to South America. It was introduced into California by Spanish settlers and can be found at many historic sites, ' especially mission gardens. The California Pepper tree is relatively fast growing, generally reaching a mature height on the order of forty feet (40') with equal spread. The trunk of an old tree is characteristically gnarled. The heavy knots and burls often sprout leaves or small branches. The tree usually does not require irrigation once established. The California Pepper Tree is known for greedy surface rooting. It should generally be used away from sidewalks and curbs, as it will damage pavement. It is best used along country roads with no curbs or in larger areas where shade is desired. It can be subject to root rot diseases in infected soils, as well as a number of insects. The species is also ' known to be subject to scaffold branch and trunk failure from decay. Each of the subject trees has a single trunk. The tree number, general location, trunk diameter, height, and canopy spread of each individual tree is provided in Table 1 in ' the Tables section of this report. The Tree Number is a sequential number assigned to each tree, to be used as a ' reference number for the remainder of this report. The High Street Address and Site comments document the general location of each tree. The trunk measurement is the average diameter of the tree in inches, measured at the standard distance referred to as "diameter breast height" or dbH. This measurement is taken at four and one -half feet t above ground level. The vertical height of the tree in feet is estimated. The canopy in feet is the estimated average horizontal spread of the tree. The canopy forms of the trees range from minor to major asymmetry. The trees create ' a generally co- dominant canopy along the north and south sides of High Street. There IHIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK i PAGE 2 0 n <4 lr ^. 4 i� IDECEMBER 18, 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA TREE HEALTH As previously stated, the subject trees have been thinned excessively and stubbed ' back an unknown number of times. These procedures were intended to keep branch weight low, thus reducing the probability of structural branch failure due to excessive weight. There is a negative side to these practices. As stated above, mature California t Pepper Trees are subject to decay that results in scaffold or trunk failure. The decrease in vigor resulting from the removal of so much foliage will likely result in less effective wood compartmentalization. Less effective compartmentalization increases the probability of scaffold branch failure due to extensive decay forming within the tree. Most of the trees exhibit epicormic growth and some twig dieback. This type of growth generally occurs when a tree is stressed by an adverse event. In the case of the ' subject trees, the topping and thinning induced the stress. Simply described, normally dormant buds sprouted to replace foliage that was removed when the trees were topped or stubbed back. Most if not all of the trees suffer from Peppertree Psyllid (Calophya rubra). This pest was accidentally introduced into California from South American around 1984 and is known to feed only on California Pepper Trees. Control is not generally warranted. ' However, given the weakened condition and extremely high value of the subject trees, the City may wish to treat all of the California Pepper Trees on High Street, including the young trees. A qualified pest control applicator should be contacted to spray a systemic insecticide this winter to reduce the psyllid population. Implants or injections could also be used, but these techniques cause trunk damage and are therefore not recommended. SITE CONDITIONS ' As previously stated, each of the subject trees is located within the right -of -way along High Street. Approximately half of the dripline area beneath each tree is covered with impervious paving. The sidewalk and curbs were replaced around many of the trees, allowing more space for the large buttress roots. However, it is apparent that root ' HIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK 4 PAGE 3 are young California Pepper Trees planted in the right -of -way, as well. These trees ' were not the subjects of this study. All of the trees have been pruned multiple times. The crowns have been raised high above High Street and the canopies have been excessively thinned. The scaffold ' structures suggest that the trees may have been topped or stubbed back years ago. Such pruning leads to poor branch attachment from re- growth, as well as stress to the ' tree's health. Branch failures are known to occur following re -growth from such events. Despite the shortcomings of the species discussed previously, each of the subject trees has value as a historic tree, street tree and shade tree. The heritage, character and ' ambiance of High Street are due in no small part to the existence of these trees. TREE HEALTH As previously stated, the subject trees have been thinned excessively and stubbed ' back an unknown number of times. These procedures were intended to keep branch weight low, thus reducing the probability of structural branch failure due to excessive weight. There is a negative side to these practices. As stated above, mature California t Pepper Trees are subject to decay that results in scaffold or trunk failure. The decrease in vigor resulting from the removal of so much foliage will likely result in less effective wood compartmentalization. Less effective compartmentalization increases the probability of scaffold branch failure due to extensive decay forming within the tree. Most of the trees exhibit epicormic growth and some twig dieback. This type of growth generally occurs when a tree is stressed by an adverse event. In the case of the ' subject trees, the topping and thinning induced the stress. Simply described, normally dormant buds sprouted to replace foliage that was removed when the trees were topped or stubbed back. Most if not all of the trees suffer from Peppertree Psyllid (Calophya rubra). This pest was accidentally introduced into California from South American around 1984 and is known to feed only on California Pepper Trees. Control is not generally warranted. ' However, given the weakened condition and extremely high value of the subject trees, the City may wish to treat all of the California Pepper Trees on High Street, including the young trees. A qualified pest control applicator should be contacted to spray a systemic insecticide this winter to reduce the psyllid population. Implants or injections could also be used, but these techniques cause trunk damage and are therefore not recommended. SITE CONDITIONS ' As previously stated, each of the subject trees is located within the right -of -way along High Street. Approximately half of the dripline area beneath each tree is covered with impervious paving. The sidewalk and curbs were replaced around many of the trees, allowing more space for the large buttress roots. However, it is apparent that root ' HIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK 4 PAGE 3 i i f C f J nFCFMRFR 1R_ 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA pruning at the buttress occurred in the past. In general, soil volumes are rather low for many of the trees. A layer of organic mulch surrounds most of the trees. Care should be exercised to keep the mulch off of each trunk. Significant plant material grows around Tree Numbers 24, 25 and 26 at the Metrolink Station. These materials should be eliminated within six inches of the tree trunks. Otherwise, decay may start and proceed unnoticed. Any irrigation that sprays onto the tree trunks should be redirected. Tree Numbers 11 and 12 compete slightly with overhead lines. However, there does not appear to be a significant conflict. Tree Numbers 15 and 18 are near streetlights. Again, there does not appear to be significant conflicts. TARGET When discussing tree hazard evaluation, target is perhaps the most important factor. Target refers to the people or property that could be injured or damaged by a tree failure. By strict definition, if there is no target present, a tree is not classified to be a hazard. Due to the proximity of the subject trees to the businesses, curbside parking, traffic, pedestrians, and landscape features, they are each considered to have the highest target value, classified as "constant use ". It is not practical to consider removal or restriction of these uses to reduce the hazard value, as the trees form a canopy over High Street. TREE DEFECTS Each tree exhibits similar root crown, trunk, scaffold, and branch defects. As previously noted, the root crowns show signs of past root pruning. The trunks have many wounds, cavities and varying amounts of decay. Each of the trees shows the characteristic burls and galls that are associated with over mature California Pepper Trees. Of special concern is the fact that the canopies have been raised very high over the years. All of the canopy weight is concentrated in the uppermost portion of the tree. Weight concentration in this area can lead to overstressing of the scaffold branches, resulting in failure. As discussed above, this defect has been managed by keeping the foliage very thin, thus reducing the scaffold branch load. In my opinion, this technique is reducing the vigor of the trees, causing them to become very stressed and subject to additional decay. HAZARD RATING The following hazard rating system utilizes the methodology contained in A_ Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, by Nelda P. IHIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK 9 PAGE 4 7 IDECEMBER 18, 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA For each tree, the part most likely to fail was documented. Failure potential is a qualitative determination of the likelihood of failure for the part of the tree that is most likely to fail. For example, a branch may be the most likely part to fail and its likelihood ' of failure may range from low to severe. The rating scale for failure potential is as follows: 0 1—low ' o 2 — medium 0 3 — high ' o 4 — severe In the case of the High Street California Pepper Trees, branches and scaffolds appear to be the parts with the highest probability of failure. The trunks appear relatively stable at this time. Size of Part ' The failure of a larger branch or other part of a tree is likely more significant than the failure of a comparably smaller part, due to the weight involved. Thus the size of the part most likely to fail is factored into the overall hazard rating. The rating scale for the ' size of the part is as follows: o 1 — less than 6 inches HIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK 4 PAGE 5 Matheny and James R. Clark. This guide is an official publication of the International ' Society of Arboriculture. The system utilizes the sum of three factors to establish a relative hazard rating for a tree: target rating, failure potential and size of part. The greater the magnitude of the rating, the greater the hazard. The absolute value of the rating is not particularly meaningful, but can be used to compare the hazard level of various trees and to ' monitor changes in the hazard level of a specific tree over time. The hazard assessment factors determined for each tree are provided in Table 2 in the Tables section of this report. Each hazard - rating factor is discussed below: ' Target Rating As previously discussed, the target for each of the subject trees is considered a constant use. The target rating scale is as follows: o 1 — occasional use ' o 2 — intermittent use o 3 — frequent use o 4 — constant use ' Thus, each of the trees has a Target Rating value of 4. As discussed, it would not be practical to restrict access to High Street. Therefore, it is unlikely that this factor can be reduced. Failure Potential For each tree, the part most likely to fail was documented. Failure potential is a qualitative determination of the likelihood of failure for the part of the tree that is most likely to fail. For example, a branch may be the most likely part to fail and its likelihood ' of failure may range from low to severe. The rating scale for failure potential is as follows: 0 1—low ' o 2 — medium 0 3 — high ' o 4 — severe In the case of the High Street California Pepper Trees, branches and scaffolds appear to be the parts with the highest probability of failure. The trunks appear relatively stable at this time. Size of Part ' The failure of a larger branch or other part of a tree is likely more significant than the failure of a comparably smaller part, due to the weight involved. Thus the size of the part most likely to fail is factored into the overall hazard rating. The rating scale for the ' size of the part is as follows: o 1 — less than 6 inches HIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK 4 PAGE 5 t I � C u DECEMBER 18, 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA o 2 — 6 inches to 18 inches o 3 — 18 inches to 30 inches o 4 — greater than 30 inches The size of the branch or scaffold most likely to fail on each of the subject trees generally lies within the first two categories. Hazard Rating As stated above, the hazard rating for each tree is the sum of the Target Rating, Failure Potential and Size of Part and Factors. If the failure potential of the branches increases over time due to increased crowding of the multiple attachments or an increase in decay, the relative hazard rating will also increase. Similarly, if the size of a branch likely to fail increases, the relative hazard rating will also increase. As shown in Table 2 in the Tables section of this report, the overall hazard ratings for the twenty -six trees range from 7 to 9. As discussed above, the hazard rating of a particular tree changes as the condition of the tree changes. The condition of the California Pepper Trees must be monitored periodically to update the hazard rating and to develop an appropriate response to any defects or adverse conditions observed. ' Given the condition and maturity of the subject trees, I recommend that they be re- inspected every six months to monitor for changes in the health and vigor, as well as any overt signs of decay. ' If the Hazard Rating of a particular tree reaches a level of 9 or greater and cannot be mitigated to a level of less than 9, the tree should be considered for removal and replacement. Despite the beauty, heritage and other intrinsic values of these trees, a ' standard of public safety must ultimately dictate whether each tree can remain or whether it must be removed. HAZARD ABATEMENT ' In addition to the specific recommendations provided in earlier sections of this report, the hazard rating of the trees can be reduced through a number of actions, including pruning /aerial inspection, cabling, pest control, and replacement. Each of these actions is discussed below. Pruning /Aerial Inspection As discussed earlier in this report, mature California Pepper Trees are subject to decay within the branches. Each of the subject specimens should receive an aerial canopy inspection once per year by a qualified arborist. The arborist should look for overt decay, as well as any changes in bark structure that would indicate internal decay. Minor pruning should be performed at that time to remove any crossing branches and to reduce multiple attachments. I cannot recommend continuation of the current practice of thinning the foliage. In my opinion, the vigor of the trees has been compromised and they are more subject to HIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK � PAGE 6 In IDECEMBER 18, 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA ' decay and therefore failure. No more than twenty -five percent (25 %) of the foliage should be removed per year for weight reduction purposes. Efforts must be focused on managing the density of the foliage and its weight distribution without removing most of ' it. Some specific immediate pruning needs were identified, as follows: Tree Number 4 — Remove lower limb pointing to the southeast. ' Tree Number 5 — Remove stub on north side. All trees — Reduce multiple attachments to strongest new leader. 'Cablinci Cabling should only be used when absolutely necessary. The procedure requires that a ' hole be drilled through the both the limb to be cabled and the limb where the cable is to be attached. An eyebolt is inserted through each of the holes and secured at the back of the limb with a washer and nut. The cable is then attached to the eyebolts and ' tightened as appropriate. Cabling is invasive. The hole in the limb can provide a point of weakness and an entry point for decay. Since the cable is an artificial item, it is subject to failure from metal ' fatigue or material defects. It must therefore be inspected and maintained on an annual basis. Use should be limited to those cases where removal of a branch would be too severe to the structure of the tree. ' Given the above issues, the City of Moorpark has adopted a no cabling policy. It is recommended that this policy be reconsidered with respect to historic trees. The goal of preservation with respect to a historic tree can be deemed to be quite different that the ' goal of more typical street tree maintenance. Pest Control ' As discussed under the Tree Health section, a qualified pest control applicator should be contacted to spray a systemic insecticide this winter to reduce the Peppertree Psyllid population. ' Replacement The following trees should be considered for the initial removal and replacement ' program: Tree Numbers 4, 9, 14, 15, 21, and 26. These trees have the highest relative hazard value at 9. The next set of trees to be considered for removal and replacement would be those ' shown to have a relative hazard rating of 8 on Table 2. If cabling is not adopted, these trees should be phased out on a schedule that is acceptable to the City and concerned citizens. ' The last trees to be removed and replaced would be those with a relative hazard level of 7. The overall goal is to reduce hazards to no greater than a level of 6. This action insures that the City has taken all reasonable measures to protect the public. ' HIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK W PAGE 7 1 DECEMBER 98, 2000 KAY J. GREELEY, ISA RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION As previously stated, if the annual Hazard Rating of a tree is rated at a 9 or above and cannot be mitigated to a level of less than 9, the tree should be considered for immediate removal. In general, each of the subject trees will eventually need to be removed unless cabling is added to the acceptable preservation techniques. WARRANTY The subject trees were generally reviewed for physical, biological, functional, and aesthetic conditions. This examination was conducted in accordance with presently accepted industry procedures, limited to a ground level, macro - visual observation only. No extensive microbiological, soil /root excavation, upper crown examination, nor internal tree investigation was conducted. Therefore the report reflects the overall visual appearance of the trees on the date reviewed. No warranty is implied as to the potential failure, health or demise of any part or the whole of any tree described in this report. Clients are advised that should physical or biological concerns be evidenced for any specimen within this report, prudent further investigation, detailed analysis or remedial action may be required. As living organisms, plants continually exhibit growth and response to environmental changes that influence the development, health and vigor of the specimen. These influences may not be externally visible and may be present or develop over various time periods depending on the site conditions. It is recommended that due to the general nature of plant development and continued environmental and physical influences on vegetation at a specific site, regular monitoring by a qualified arborist is scheduled. This report represents the independent opinion of the preparer and was conducted per the client's scope of request. The report is therefore limited to the information provided. IHIGH STREET TREE STUDY CITY OF MOORPARK 9 PAGE 8 r- 1 0 i_ U TABLE 1 TREE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS G, 111 4111, ,{r r High Street Trunk Height Canopy Tree # Address Site Diameter (in.) (ft.) Spread (ft.) 1 361 -1/2 _ Vacant lot 38 40 40 2 349 Ron's Portable Welding 47 1 45 60 3 NW corner at Magnolia Street 26 40 35 4 5 273 2nd tree W of NW corner at Magnolia Street House 36 41____L5_0 48 35 45 6 255 The Secret Garden I 38 50 i 70 7 233 Office building (blue and white) 25 35 40 8 213 The Gas Station 43 40 60 9 10 165 165 Carton Profession Building (E tree) Carton Profession Building (W tree) 39 _ i 37 55 50 50 45 11 137 Mayflower Market �38 50 45 12 1 192 Western -most tree at old station 49 50 I 65 13 192 Second tree from W at old station 40 50 50 14 1 192 Third tree from W at old station 41 50 45 15 192 Fourth tree from W at old station 34 45 48 16 17 192 192 Fifth tree from W at old station !Sixth tree from W at old station 32 42 40 40 45 60 18 226 Tan building i 58 45 1 65 19 226 Vacant lot, E of tan building 31 30 40 20 226 (Vacant lot, second tree E of tan building 29 30 35 21 I 226 Vacant lot, third tree E of tan building j 29 1 30 35 22 226 Vacant lot, fourth tree E of tan building ! 25 i 30 1 30 23 I 226 !,Vacant lot, fifth tree E of tan building 36 I. 35 j 65 24 _ Western -most tree at Metrolink station 37 40 1 40 25 26 Second tree from W at Metrolink station :.Third tree from W at Metrolink station j 32 i 51 L L 35 1 45 j 40 30 G, 111 4111, ,{r r L n TABLE 2 HAZARD ASSESSMENT Most _ I I Relative Tag Target Rating Points Likely Failure Failure Potential Rating I Points Size of Part Rating Points; Hazard Rating _# 1 Constant 4 1 Scaffold Medium 2 6" to 18" 2 8 2 Constant 4 Scaffold I Medium 2 16" to 18" 2 8 3 Constant 4 Branch Medium 2 6" to 18" 2 8 4 Constant 4 Branch I High 3 6" to 18" 2 9 5 Constant 4 Branch Medium 2 6" to 18" 2 8 6 Constant 4 Branch Medium I 2 6" to 18" 2 8 7 Constant 4 Branch Medium I 2 --- <6" 1 7 8 Constant 4 Scaffold Medium 2— 6" to 18" 2 _8 9 Constant 4 Scaffold High 3 6" to 18" I 2 I _9 10 Constant 4 Scaffold Medium 6" to 18" I 2 8 11 Constant 4 Scaffold ! Medium 2 6" to to 18" 22 8 12 Constant 4 Branch I Medium 2 6" to 18" 2 8 13 14 15 1 Constant C� onstant Constant 4 4 1 4 Branch { Branch Scaffold Medium High High 2 3 3 6" to 18" 6" to 18" 6" to 18" 2 2 I 2 i 8 9 9 16 Constant 4 Scaffold j Medium 2 6" to 18" 2 8 17 Constant 4 Branch Medium 2 6" to 18" 2 8 18 Constant 4 4 Branch Medium 2 I, 6" to 18" i 2 8 19 20 21 22 1 Constant; ; Constant I Constant i Constant 4 4 4 4 Scaffold Branch +_Branch ! Branch 1 Medium ! Medium High High j 2 ; 2 3 ; 3 6" #0 18" 1 6" to 18" 16� "to 18" <6 "r ! 2 ! 2 i 2 1 8 8 9 -8 23 24 Constant 1 Constant j 4 4 Scaffold Branch Medium Medium 1 2 2 16" to 18" 6" to 18" 2 j 2 8 8 25 Constant I 4 Branch Medium Z < <6" 1 7 26 Constant 4 I Scaffold High 3 6" to 18" 1 2 9 Tree Number Tree Numbers 3 (right) and 4 (left) Tree Number Tree Number h Tree Number 6 Tree Numbers 9 (right) and 10 (left) Tree Numbers 7 (right) and 8 (left) Tree Number 11 -' g.' G� Tree Number 12 Tree Number 15 Tree Numbers 13 (right) and 14 (left) Tree Numbers 16 (right) and 17 (left) Tree Number 18 Tree Numbers 21 (right) and 22 (second from right) Tree Numbers 19 (right) and 20 (second from right) Tree Numbers 23 (right) and 24 (left) C.1 L� 4 " 'Ail n �z y .1 } nt + x? i «a: