Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 112-11
On the afternoon of February 24, 2010, members of the City Parks Section, Public Works Tree Section, and managers from the Community Services Department met with a small group of concerned neighbors and park users of Pardee Park to listen to concerns about the safety of the playground, adjoining sidewalks and the area surrounding the sixteen eucalyptus trees lining the southwest comer of the park at Channing A venue and Center Drive. Staff tried to assure the neighbors and parents that no branches to date had fallen inside of the fence around the children's playground and that the area was considered by staff to be safe. As a precaution staff agreed to close the playground until the City's Managing Arborist could evaluate the structure of the trees and make recommendations. Staff held a second meeting at the park in the early evening of March 11, 2010 for the benefit of neighbors and park users who were not able to attend the first meeting on February 24th. The City's Managing Arborist Eric Krebs evaluated the condition of the eucalyptus trees, effects from their prior pruning and their general health. His report, dated March 2,2010, concluded that six of the trees exhibited evidence of internal trunk rot caused by an aggressive wood decay pathogen (sulphur fungus) (Attachment B), and he recommended that these six trees, together with a dying redwood tree in another area of the park, be removed. He further recommended that the remaining ten eucalyptus trees be pruned to remove structurally unsound branches. On March 11, 2010, staff from Public Works, Community Services and the City Manager's Office held a third informational meeting at the Lucie Stem Community Center with concerned citizens to review the Arborist's report and recommendations. Staff explained that because of the aggressive nature of the decay pathogen, the six trees with fruiting bodies of sulphur fungus showing the greatest extent of trunk cankers, as outlined in the March 2nd report, would be cut down and thoroughly examined. City Manager Keene sent a memo to Council on May 9, 2010, providing notice of the eminent removal of these six trees. Three of the most severely affected trees were removed first and examined. The examination of these three trees showed conclusively that the sulphur fungus had indeed caused extensive rotting of the core of the trees. Staff held a fourth public meeting at the Stern Community Center on June 8,2010, to discuss the findings from the examinations of the trunks of the removed trees. There was a large turn-out of concerned neighbors, parents and park users at this meeting. The public was informed that the final three of six trees would be removed from the park as soon as possible. Many members of the audience urged the City to hire an independent arborist to examine the trunks of the removed trees and all of the remaining trees for their health, safety and structural integrity. During the month of July, the services of Torrey Young, an arborist from the firm of Dryad, LLC, were contracted by the City. Mr. Young examined impacts of the tree pruning conducted by the City tree crews in the 80's, the recent limb pruning by West Coast Tree Services, the condition of trunk cores of the removed trees, and the trunks of the remaining trees. His report (Attachment C) concluded that the structural integrity of the branches had been compromised because of past tree pruning as well as severe soil compaction around the roots of the trees caused by vehicles, that the trees could not be completely rehabilitated. His conclusion was that CMR: 112:11 Page 2 of5 all of the eucalyptus trees should be removed either in phases (as indicated by the health of individual trees) or at one time to lessen the risk of additional limb drop or whole tree failure around the playground. Mr. Young presented his two alternative recommendations at a fifth public meeting held at the Stern Center on September 23,2010. DISCUSSION Concluding that all of the eucalyptus trees would either need to be removed in phases or at one time, staff hired Landscape Architect Edward Chau to develop conceptual plans for the replanting of trees at the southwest corner of the park. His plans were intended to be designed to both complement the olive, oak and other ornamental trees around the playground and provide a relatively safe and attractive canopy along Channing A venue and Center Drive. At the extensively advertised sixth public meeting on December 1, 2010 for the review of three different conceptual replanting plans, Mr. Chau gathered input from the public on the "pros" and "cons" of each of the three conceptual drawings. Comments, suggestions and concerns were also gathered from the meeting participants. Notes from this meeting and the subsequent review meeting on December 8, 2010 at attached for reference (Attachment D and E respectively). In developing his final conceptual plan, Mr. Chau has also taken recommendations from Mr. Krebs, Mr. Young, members of the park staff, the public and representatives from Canopy for the species and spacing of trees in this area. Based on subsequent conversations with the consulting Arborist and his recommendation (Attachment F) that six of the eucalyptus trees could remain along Channing A venue with systematic monitoring and continued pruning, staff and Mr. Chau have developed a phased approach that would remove three additional Eucalyptus viminalis (White Gum eucalyptus) trees from along Center Drive and one Eucalyptus globulus (Blue Gum eucalyptus -identified in Mr. Kreb's report as #12) closest to the children's playground on Channing Avenue. This phased approach (Attachment G) leaves one eucalyptus (#1) near the bowl area of Pardee Park on Center Drive and five trees (#11, 13, 14, 15 and 16) along Channing Avenue. The rationale for recommending the phased approach Mr. Chau has developed, rather than the complete removal of all sixteen trees, is that significant pruning completed last springs seems to be adequate to address concerns about limb failure. This alternative removes trees from along Center Drive where cars can park. Since parking is not permitted along Channing Avenue where five of the trees will remain, there is less risk of damage or injury from limbs if a branch does indeed fall. Staff feels that retaining the healthiest of the sixteen original trees is a prudent approach to retaining the beauty and character of these trees for as long as safely possible. Staff monitored the trees during recent winter storms and noted that no limbs fell during periods of severe wind gusts of up to 45 miles per hour. Mr. Chau's recommendation also incorporates two new pathways between the sidewalk on Center Drive and the playground or the existing pathways near the Bowl. A decomposed granite pathway would connect the two new concrete pathways. These pathway concepts were popular with the meeting participants. At the public's suggestion, an existing pathway near the Channing Avenue entrance to the playground will be rerouted to skirt the footprint of remaining eucalyptus tree #16. CMR: 112:11 Page 3 of5 Based on Mr. Chau's designs, staff from the Public Work Engineering section have developed engineer's cost estimates for the removal of the four trees, grinding of tree stumps, installation of irrigation systems to sustain the newly planted trees, pathways, fencing and other necessary park amenities for the area. The costs for these improvements are estimated at $30,470. An additional $2,438 is requested for design services for the preparation of the final design and specifications, and an additional $4,440 for additional tree monitoring and pruning services by Mr. Young. While staff acknowledges that leaving the six remaining eucalyptus trees involves some potential liability risk, in consulting with Mr. Young and reviewing his recommendations, staff feels that the trees can be further pruned and monitored to keep any risk to an acceptable minimum. It is not clear at the time of this report when additional trees may need to be removed because of health or heightened safety concerns. If Mr. Young determines at any time that the condition of any tree has worsened to a unacceptable level, staff will then advise Council of the proposed removal and additional tree replanting. TIMELINE Once Council approves the recommended Budget Amendment Ordinance (Attachment A), staff will immediately proceed with the fiI;1al design of the proposed improvements. While plans are being finalized, Public Works will oversee the contracted removal of the four additional eucalyptus trees and with the grinding of the remaining tree stumps. Park staff will oversee the installation of the new irrigation system to support the new trees. Staff intends to manage all of the components of the replacement project so that the twelve new trees could be planted by mid- March. ' RESOURCE IMPACT This proposed project for the planting of twelve trees, the removal of four additional eucalyptus trees, the stump grinding of ten stumps, the installation of new irrigation for the watering of the trees and the addition of new concrete and decomposed granite pathways and other related expenses are estimated to cost $37,348. The details of the expenses are shown on the following table: ,Description Amount Planting of twelve trees, the removal of four additional $27,700 eucalyptus trees, the stump grinding of ten stumps, the installation of new irrigation for the watering of the trees and the addition of new concrete and decomposed granite pathways 10% contingency $2,770 Professional arborist services to continue monitoring the $4,440 six remaining trees and additional pruning Design services for the preparation of plan:' specifications $2,438 Total $37,348 The appropriation of CIP Project PG-09002 (Parks and Open Space Emergency Repairs) did not include the work describe in the table above. A budget amendment ordinance of $37,348 is being CMR: 112:11 Page 4 of5 Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $37,348 TO CIP PROJECT PG- 09002, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY REPAIRS FOR THE REPLANTING OF TREES AT ELEANOR PARDEE PARK The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and determines as follows: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 28, 2010 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 2011; and B. During the year staff conducted seven meetings with the community to discuss the safety of eucalyptus trees at - Eleanor Pardee Park along Channing Avenue and Center Drive (Park), and more specifically the options for further removal of the trees and alternatives for the replanting of trees in the southwest corner of the Park; and C. Staff considered the comments made by meeting participants, recommendations from the City's Managing Arborist and independent consulting arborist; and have concluded that the best strategy is to replant the trees in at least two phases; and D. The first phase, which is the subj ect of this budget amendment ordinance, is for the removal of four eucalyptus trees along Center Drive and the planting of twelve new replacement trees along Center Drive and'Channing Avenue; and E. The adopted budget for fiscal year 2011 for CIP Project PG-09002 (Parks and Open Space Emergency Repairs) did not incorporate expenses related to actions mentioned in Section D of this ordinance; and F. City Council authorization is needed to amend the 2011 budget to make additional appropriations of $37,348 to PG-0002 (Parks' and Open Space Emergency Repairs) for the removal and replanting of trees at Eleanor Pardee Park along Center Drive and Director of Administrative Services March 2, 2010 Attachment B Eleanor Pardee Park Eucalyptus and Redwood Maintenance Recommendations Report Prepared for: Greg Betts City of Palo Alto Director of Community Services Eric Krebs City ofpalo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Prepared by: Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Managing Arborist March 2, 2010 Page-I-ofI2 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 Background/Summary In response to safety concerns expressed by Palo Alto.residents, I performed an inspection of the Eleanor Pardee Park eucalyptus trees and one redwood tree. My recommendation is to preserve ten of the sixteen eucalyptus trees and to remove six. I am also recommending the removal of one redwood tree that is in very poor condition. The individual tree conditions and supporting rationale are discussed in the Observations portion of this report. My inspection was performed from the ground and this report reflects only the information I noted from this perspective. Most of these trees are very large and it is difficult to provide a thorough evaluation from ground level. If the City adopts my recommendation, a more comprehensive inspection will be performed during climbing/pruning operations. While the need for maintenance is clear, I did not find obvious signs of imminent hazards. The trees are tagged with numbers that correspond to the City's tree inventory. A map is included for easy reference to individual trees (see Attachment A). Observations Tree #1 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis Diameter at breast height (DBH) = 53" Height (per PWE Survey) = 94' Canopy spread = average 70' Past pruning was limited t6 the more horizontal branching. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #2 Species: Size: Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = a multiple of three trunks originating below 4.5 feet (M/3); 31",22" and 17.5" eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 Public Works Managing Arborist . Page - 2 -of 12 March 2, 2010 Height (per PWE Survey) = 31 ' Canopy spread = average 25' This tree was topped in July of2000. Rapid regrowth of branches at the topping cuts are weakly attached to the parent sterns. Fungal fruiting bodies were found on the base of the tree. Field identification indicated a well- known and aggressive wood decay pathogen, sulphur fungus (Laetiporus sulphureus). The most recent maintenance was in September of2006. Maintenance was limited to an inspection. Recommendations: Due to the aggressive nature of this wood decay pathogen, my recommendation is removal. Tree #3 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = M/4; 26", 21", 19" and 13" Height (per PWE Survey) = 60' Canopy spread = average 25' This tree's natural form has been maintained. Fungal fruiting bodies (L. sulphureus) were fo·und on the base of the tree. The most recent maintenance was in February of201O. Maintenance included limb pickup and an inspection. Recommendations: Due to the aggressive nature of this wood decay pathogen, my recommendation is removal. Tree #4 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = M/2; 19" and 16" Height (per PWE Survey) = 47' Canopy spread = average 25' This tree's natural form has been maintained. Fungal fruiting bodies of SUlphur fungus (L. sulphureus) were found on the base of the tree. Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page - 3 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloaJto.org (650) 496-690Y March 2, 2010 The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. Recommendations: Due to the aggressive nature of this wood decay pathogen, my recommendation is removal. Tree #5 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = M/3; 49", 36" and 26" Height (per PWE Survey) = 134' Canopy spread = average 60' Past pruning was limited to the lower branches. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #6 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = 57" Height (per PWE Survey) = 90' Canopy spread = average 40' Past pruning was limited to the lower branches. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page -4-of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 Tree #7 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = 48" Height (per PWE Survey) = 31' Canopy spread = average 20' This tree was topped in July of2000. Rapid regrowth of branches at the topping cuts are weakly attached to the parent stems. Fungal fruiting bodies (L. sulphureus) were found on the base of the tree. The most recent maintenance was in November of 1995. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. Recommendations: Due to the aggressive nature of this wood decay pathogen, my recommendation,is removal. Tree #8 Species: Size: Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = 64" Height (per PWE Survey) = 62' Canopy spread = average 50' This tree was topped in July of2000. Rapid regrowth of branches at the topping cuts are weakly attached to the parent stems. Fungal fruiting bodies (L. sulphureus) were found on the base of the tree. Recommendations: Due to the aggressive nature of this wood decay pathogen, my recommendation is removal. Tree #9 Species: Size: Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Eucalyptus viminalis DBH = 56" Height (per PWE Survey) = 125' Canopy spread = average 40' Public Works Managing Arborist Page - 5 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #10 Species: Size: Eucalyptus globulus DBH = 42" Height (per PWE Survey) = 122' Canopy spread = average 35' Fungal fruiting bodies (L. sulphureus) were found on the base of the tree. The most recent maintenance was in July of2000. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. Recommendations: Due to the aggressive nature of this wood decay pathogen, my recommendation is removal. Tree #11 Species: Size: Eucalyptus globulus DBH = 37" Height (per PWE Survey) = 72' Canopy spread = average 35' Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious structural defects are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page - 6 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 Tree #12 Species: Size: Eucalyptus globulus DBH =40" Height (per PWE Survey) = 113' Canopy spread = average 30' Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainder ofthe tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune. (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #13 Species: Size: Note: Special attention should be given to the limbs that are oriented towards and located above the playground. Eucalyptus globulus DBH = 41" Height (per PWE Survey) = 96' Canopy spread = average 35' Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #14 Species: Eucalyptus globulus Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto· Public Works Managing Arborist Page - 7 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 Size: DBH = 36" Height (per PWE Survey) = 87' Canopy spread = average 40' Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. There are branches with heavy end weights throughout the canopy. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #15 Species: Size: Eucalyptus globulus DBH =40" Height (per PWE Survey) = 87' Canopy spread = average 45' Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainqer of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. Throughout the canopy many branches have heavy end weights. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. The most recent maintenance was in September of 2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #16 Species: Size: Eucalyptus globulus DBH = 55" Height (per PWE Survey) = 112' Canopy spread = average 50' Past pruning was limited to the more horizontal branching. The remainder of the tree's structure was left to grow naturally. No obvious or imminent hazards are noticeable. Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page - 8 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 The most recent maintenance was in September of2006. Maintenance included pruning and an aerial inspection. The health appears to be good. Recommendations: Safety Prune (See Pruning Recommendations) Tree #17 Note: Special attention should be given to the limbs that are oriented towards the playground. (See tree # 125 on attached map) Species: Size: Sequoia sempervirens DBH =47" Height (per PWE Survey) = 122' Canopy spread = average 35' This tree is in serious decline, I estimated that more than seventy percent of the canopy is dead. An inspection of the root flare indicated that 90 percent ofthe roots at the surface are dead and in various stages of decay. The dead limbs and the decaying roots make this a hazardous tree. The most recent maintenance was in November 2009. Maintenance Included root crown inspection. Recoinmendations: Based on these findings my recommendation is removal. Ther.e is a plaque at the base ofthis tree identifying that this tree was planted by the Daughters of the American Revolution. Additional outreach is being done with that organization and the tree will not be removed until after the representatives have been consulted with and have agreed with our findings. Discussion In my opinion the risk of limb failures on these trees has a higher degree of probability than the risk of whole tree failure. The likelihood of limb failure is compounded by the type of pruning used in the past to maintain safety. My recommendations are intended to mitigate both whole tree failure andJimb failure. Some of the risk can be mitigated by fencing a large portion of the area below the trees that I have recommended for retention. This fencing would also relieve some of the soil compaction that is being caused by foot and vehicle traffic. Soil compaction can negatively impact tree roots Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page - 9 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 and over time cause the demise of a tree. (This is a secondary recommendation and depends on Parks Department's funding.) The most probable targets for limb failures are the areas directly under the trees including the street, parking areas, and the sidewalk (We can not close the street parking and sidewalk but we can fence the areas between the playground and the sidewalk.) In July of 2000, many of the eucalyptus were topped and major scaffold limbs were headed off to eliminate the possibility of large branches falling into the playground area. This aggressive pruning negatively affected the health and physiology of the trees and made them vulnerable to insects, disease, and decay. The sUlphur fungus (Laetiporus sulphureus) was identified on the base of many of these trees. The presence of this decay pathogen is most likely a direct result of the topping and heading cuts. All of the literature I have studied suggests that by the time the fruiting bodies of this fungus appear, the internal decay in the hosting tree is significant enough to warrant removaJ. My experience supports these findings. Fungicide treatment is an option I considered however it is limited to direct application to the targeted fungi. Even with the invention of systemic fungicides, there use is limited. In this specific case, the pathogen is too involved in the wood for fungicides to be effective. Additionally, given some residents concerns regarding these trees and the proximity of the children's play area I do not recommend second guessing what is known about the pathogen. Decay in the roots and basal area of a tree increases the risk of whole tree failure. This is not an acceptable risk in a high use area such as the park. The remaining trees are generally in good shape, both in health and structure. While pruning cannot guarantee that we will not have tree failures, it does minimize the risk of retaining such large trees. The pruning that I am recommending is intended to minimize risks while maintaining tree health. With proper care these trees should be viable for many years to come. Recommendations Pruning: Use thinning cuts only .. Reduce the height, spread and end weights by pruning back to lat~ral branches that are large enough to assume the terminal roles (at least one-third the diameter of the cut stem). Do not use heading cuts. Cuts should be limited to a maximum of six inches in diameter. At old failure sites and heading cuts, reconstructive pruning should be used to maximize the strength of the limb to remain. Care should be taken to choose structurally sound limbs. The climber will be expected to thoroughly inspect the tree's structure and to discuss any abnormalities with the arborist before any cuts are made so that changes to the recommendations can be formulated. Removal: At this time, because of the aggressive nature of the decay pathogen found on tree numbers 2,3,4, 7, 8, and 10, I am recommending removal. Trees 2, 4 and 7 will be removed first as they show the greatest signs of the pathogen decay. I will personally inspect those three trees Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page -10 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 as they are removed to observe the amount of decay found within the tree and use that information as another tool to validate my recommendations regarding the remaining Eucalyptus trees currently planned for removal. I will share my findings on the first three trees removed with all interested parties before any work is taken to remove the other three trees. The redwood (tree # 17) is a hazardtree. The only means of mitigation for this hazard is removal. Planting: The removal of the seven trees will create an opportunity to create a planting that will provide aesthetics, shade, and reduced risk in the play area. The Parks Department and Public Works Arborist will need to discuss the possibility of fencing the areas between the sidewalk and the playground. Once this is accomplished, we can choose suitable tree species and locate appropriate sites. Schedule for work: Timing to perform this work will be difficult because of the recent layoff notices received by several members of the Public Works Tree Crew. Public Works still plans to use in-house crews to do this work because of the large size of the trees as well as to maintain better trimming practices by using our experienced crews. No work will begin until we receive authority from the City Managers office to move forward. Once approval is received the 14-day notices posted on the removal trees will go into affect. After the 14 waiting period is over, and assuming no other issues arise to delay the work, Public Works crews would start on the trimming and removal work immediately. If approval of this project is delayed we may need to switch to using contractors to trim these trees. Aswe currently do not have this project in any contract scope we will need to proceed with the normal contracting process which could add 2- months for competitive bidding and possible City Council Approval depending on cost. We estimate work on this project will take 3-4 weeks to complete. Conclusion Providing safety for the City of Palo Alto's residents and visitors is always our primary objective, but we cannot guarantee that trees will be safe. We use our professional judgment and experience to manage the risks associated with living with trees. From my visual inspection of the trees mentioned in this report, I feel that the trees I recommended for retention can be reasonably managed and that my recommendation to remove seven trees is based on sound arboricultural judgment. The trees that I am recommending for retention have no obvious signs that indicate they should be removed. The recommended pruning is targeting safety issues such as heavily weighted limbs. Fencing the areas under the trees will further minimize the risk of injury due to falling limbs and provide for better tree health. The trees that I am recommending for removal are considered hazardous due to decay in the roots and basal areas. I considered other means of mitigation, but concluded that the potential for catastrophic whole tree failure is too high and that, considering the target area, it would not be prudent to maintain these trees. Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page -11 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 March 2, 2010 My investigation did not include a comprehensive study to quantify the extent of the decay or the limb attachment strength to limb weight ratio. However, I believe that the evidence collected during my visual tree assessment supports my recommendations. Respectfully submitted, Eric Krebs Public Works Managing Arborist ISA Certified Arborist # WC-829 Member of American Society of Consulting Arborists Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto Public Works Managing Arborist Page -12 -of 12 eric.krebs@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 496-6905 Attachment C 1 0024-40006 c EVALUATION OF TEN EUCALYPTUS TREES Eleanor Pardee Park Palo Alto, California Prepared For: Eric Krebs, Managing Arborist "- City of Palo Alto 3201 East Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto CA 94303 650-496-6905 Prepared By: Torrey Young \, " \. \ Registered Consulting Arborist® 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone (877) 206-4001 Fax (510) 538-6001 \ E-mail tyoung@dryad.us \ August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park CLIENT ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 SITE ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 INSPECTION DATES ............................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1 SUMMARY ................................................... I! ••.......................................................................................... 2 DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................................... 3-4 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................ 5 TREE DATA & TRACE EVALUATIONS ..................... · ...................... ~ ............................................. 6-8 TREE LOCATION DIAGRAMS ....................................................................................................... 9-10 PHOTOGRAPHS ............................................................................................................................... 11;.34 CERTIFICATION, STATEMENT & COPyRIGHT ........•..................................•.......•..................... 35 CONSULTANT ....................................................................................................................................... 36 END NOTES .................................. ~ ............................................................•............................ Ii! ••••••••••••• 37-8 + + 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung @dryad.us August5.2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park 1. Eleanor Pardee Eucalyptus and Redwood Maintenance Recommendations Report, Eric Krebs, March 2, 2010. 2. Eleanor Pardee Eucalyptus and Redwood Maintenance Recommendations Report, Eric Krebs, Phase II, June 4,2010. 3. Facebook, Residents for Safe Palo Alto Parks5, Question and Answer pa~e by David Muffly. 4. Care2, Replace Eucalyptus Trees at Eleanor Pardee Park; online petition. 5. Eleanor Pardee Park Eucalyptus Maintenance Project documents, RFQ123456, including Section III Scope of Services. I met on site with Mr. Krebs, performed my inspection and photographed the trees on July 16, 2010. This repOrt details and summarizes my evaluation and resulting opinions as to the condition and management of these trees. A number of trees in the vicinity had been recently removed to stumps prior to my inspection. One additional tree (no. 3) is already scheduled for removal and is therefore not addressed in this report. For identification purposes, I refer within this report to the numbers on existing aluminum tags attached to the trees. The ten trees included are nos. 1, 5, 6, 9 and 11-16. The ten trees addressed in this report are very large, well-established trees. They appear to have experienced similar pruning over many years, including a recent pruning in 2010. They display a myriad of conditions worthy of concern, remarkably similar between all trees. The majority of these conditions cannot be remedied, and the extent to which they can be mitigated is minimal. There is currently a significant potential for failure of smaller limbs and branches, as well as potential for large limbs and stems eventually to fail. The presence of extensive trunk decay from sulfur fungus (Laetiporus gilbertsoniil combined with external related signs in standing trees suggests there is also potential for whole tree failures. It is my opinion that the high-traffic nature of the site combined with the method and long-term impacts of previous pruning renders inevitable the need to eventually remove these trees. In consideration of that conclusion, there are only two viable management options: 1) Develop a long-term phased removal and replacement plan, including regular risk reduction pruning. Root crown excavation and inspectionS, Resistograph® testing9 and mapping of basal decay should be performed on every tree before developing removal priorities. 2) Remove all ten trees, redesign the site landscape including judiciously selected shade tree species and specimens, as well as growing area culture and protection (fencing). A third option, retaining the trees indefinitely, is possible, but inconsistent with my observations and conclusions relative to the condition of these ten trees. Regular and judicious pruning could reduce but not eliminate the potential for failures and resulting damages or injury. I do not recommend indefinite retention of any of these trees. + + + Page 20f38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206·4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Acute-angled attachments originate at a close angle to the parent stem or Ii~b, interfering with growth in the area between, where bark remains. Such attachments are extremely prone to failure and should be eliminated when very small. Sulfur fungus (Laetiporus gilbertsonii/7: Extensive decay from this heart-rot fungus compromises both trunk strength, and supportive roots. This pathogen typically enters through large wounds, including topping and heading cuts and damaged roots, aU of which are prevalent in these trees. The decay from this fungus will continue to spread and is not treatable. It is not unusual to condemn infected trees by virtue of its mere presence. In the interest of phased removals, Resistograph®18 testing and diagramming of the results could establish a basis for prioritizing removals. The presence of vigorous ribs of reaction wood19 at the base of several trees (e.g., #5 & 6) suggests basal decay severe enough to increase stress on the remaining outer shell of the trunk. These two trees are thus particularly suspect as having the potential for whole tree failure. Resistograph® testing is warranted. Site use and management: The soil throughout the growing area of these trees is bare of organic material (mulch) and heavily compacted. These conditions are not conducive to tree health, likely contributed to susceptibility to the decay pathogen, and reduced ability to compartmentalize large cuts. Compaction interferes with root gaseous exchange, reduces infiltration of water, and increases soil temperatures damaging existing roots and rendering new root development difficult. TRACE20 Risk Assessment: Included in this report (Data chart, pg.6) are Risk Assessment ratings developed following the Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA's Certified Tree Risk Assessor Program protocol. This information was included for informational purposes only and is not the basis of my conclusions or recommendations. This process is based upon identifying only the tree part most likely to fail soonest, rather than the largest, most serious or with the most potential for serious damage or injury. The majority of the ten trees addressed in this report have short term potential for minor failures and long-term potential for failure of large parts that could result in serious damage and/or injury. Cost Considerations: 1) A long-term phased removal plan would require substantial and continuous maintenance. The current cost . of debris clean-up for a profusely-shedding species (Eucalyptus) would be reduced as trees are removed, but not eliminated. The substantial cost of removal would be experienced over a long-term duration. A slight increase in removal costs might result from the need to protect new plantings and design elements. Replanting costs and resulting maintenance would also be experienced over a long-term duration. 2) Removing all ten trees at once and promptly replanting would entail substantial cost in a short duration. The benefits of large landscape trees would also be lost for many years. The substantial cost of maintenance, including constant debris clean-up would be eliminated. The risk of these tree.s would be eliminated, along with any financial exposure the City of Palo Alto and its agents or contractors might experience should failing trees or tree parts result in serious damage or injury. Further, a well-planned and maintained replacement landscape results in little maintenance needs or associated costs. The asset feature of the trees would be lost, but eventually regained as a well-designed landscape takes its place, without the substantial risk represented by the existing trees. Page40f38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park 1) Management recommendations for trees retained: the following are recommendations for the management of any trees to be indefinitely retained or retained over a phased removal approach. Although these efforts can enhance tree health and reduce risk, they cannot eliminate risk. Some conditions, regardless of preservation efforts, will continue to worsen and increase risk. . a) Root crown excavations and inspections should be performed on all trees along with Resistograph® testing of supporting roots. Inspection should be possible around the origination area of the trunk and supporting buttress roots to a depth of at least six"'twelve inches below the current grade. The intent is to determine the condition and distribution of the supporting root system. b) Resistograph® testing should be performeg at the base of each trunk circumferentially and at any specific location suggesting decay or fractures, as well as vertically on significant supporting roots. Sound wood depths can be used to diagram any discovered internally decayed areas. c) Prioritize trees for removal based upon plan duration, City tolerance of risk and tree condition. d) Remove promptly any and all trees found to be at immediate risk for whole-tree failure. e) Mitigate soil compaction in the area beneath the trees, roughly from sidewalk to playground. Soil cultivation/aeration can be achieved in the least damaging manner using a radial trenching technique via an air knife tool21 (pneumatically driven). f) Mulch22 the area beneath the trees, roughly from sidewalk to playground, with 3-4" (settled depth) of organic mulch. Maintain the mulch layer permanently and enhance on a regular basis. g) Perform crown-reduction pruning, including of elimination of limbs structurally at risk, on at least a biannual basis. Allow interior and lower growth to develop, selectively leaving occasional sprouts to be nurtured into substantial lateral branches. 2) Management recommendations for removal and replacement: the following are,recommendations relative to complete removal and replacement of all ten trees, or for incorporation into a long-term phased removal plan. Not included are any recommendations for construction elements, or design for aesthetics or usage beyond the selection and handling of replacement trees. a) Remove all trees to grade and grind completely all stumps and roots within approximately ten feet of the center of each trunk or anywhere visible at grade. b) Mitigate soil compaction in the area beneath the trees, roughly from sidewalk to playground. Tilling is acceptable except in the vicinity of trees or shrubs to remain. In those areas, employ radial trenching only via an air knife tool (12-18" depth). c) Replant with native species. Native species can reduce maintenance needs while providing enhanced aesthetics and functional value. I recommend a combination of native trees and shrubs found in the area: i) California live oaks (Quercus agrifo/ia) plant two or three to the north and northwest, mid-way between sidewalk and playground, to allow for maximum growing space. ii) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) and/or California black oak (Quercus keloggil) plant two to four to the south and west, to provide shade in the summer and allow for sunlight penetration when leaves are lost in winter. iii) California coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) replace the grandeur of large trees by planting eight to twelve specimens, allowing maximum space between trees and oaks. d) Mulch the area, roughly from sidewalk to playground, with 3-4" (settled depth) of organiC mulch. Maintain the mulch layer permanently and enhance on a regular basis. Avoid planting of turf, groundcovers or any plahts requiring frequent irrigation beneath trees. e) Install permanent protective fencing, sufficient to protect much of the dripline areas of trees, while allowing for use of and access to the area. f) Mail1tenance: establishment (1-3 years) usly an organic mulch layer throughout the planting area. , structural, corrective pruning of oaks and as necessary for clearance. redwoods altogether. If pruning is preformed, limit to removal of dead branches and ral improvements (e.g., codominant stems) and broken limbs. Page 5 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August5,2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Identification . No Genus-Species Eucalyptus 9 viminalis manna gum Eucalyptus 11 globulus bluegum ,- Eucalyptus 12 globulus bluegum Eucalyptus 13 globulus bluegum © Copyright 201 0, Dryad, LLC Trunk diameter Conditions and DBH24 Observations • Acute-angled attachments • Decayed pruning cuts • Old and recent heading cuts • Lion's tailing (old & recent) 56 • Right-angled new leaders • Topping cuts • Poor taper of limbs • Limb curvature • Reaction wood with kino exuding at base • Coda min ant stem @ 30° over street • Acute-angled attachments • Decayed pruning cuts 37 • Topping cuts • Old and recent heading cuts • Lion's tailing (old & recent) • Right-angled new leaders • Poor taper of limbs • Limb curvature • Codominant tops • Acute-angled attachments • Old and recent heading cuts 40 • Right-angled new leaders • Topping cuts • Poor taper of limbs • Limb curvature • Lion's tailing (old & recent) • Codominant stem & tops • Acute-angled attachments • Decayed pruning cuts • Topping cuts' Old and 41 recent heading cuts' Lion's tailing (old & recent) • Right-angled new leaders • Poor taper of limbs' Limb curvature • Rooldamagefgirdlinll root(s) TRACE Evaluation23 Rated Defeces Probability Part Target Risk TRACE Risk (most likely part to fail) (1-5) Size Rating Rating Description26 (1-3) (1-4) (1-12) (summarized) High 1, Issues -6" diameter limb, are clear- poor taper, lion's-4 2 3 9 retain but tailed. monitor annually. Moderate 3, -4" diameter limb, Well defined poqr taper, lion's-issues -retain 3 1 4 8 tailed. and monitor, no concern for 1-2 years. High 1, Issues -6" diameter limb, are c1ear- poor taper, lion's-3 2 4 9 retain but tailed. monitor annually. Moderate 3, -4" diameter limb, Well defined poor taper, lion's-3 issues -retain 1 4 8 tailed. and monitor, no concern for 1-2 years. Page 7of38 AugustS, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Identification No Genus-Species Eucalyptus 14 globulus bluegum Eucalyptus 15 globulus bluegum Eucalyptus 16 globulus bluegum ----- © Copyright 201 0, Dryad, LLC Trunk diameter Conditions and DBH24 Observations • Topping cuts • Old and recent heading cuts 36 • Lion's tailing (old & recent) • Right-angled new leaders • Poor taper of limbs • Limb curvature • Codominant tops; both near- horizontal • Acute-angled attachments • Decayed pruning cuts 40 • Topping cuts • Old and recent heading cuts • Lion's tailing (old & recent) • Right-angled new leaders • Poor taper of limbs • Limb curvature • Acute-angled attachments • Decayed pruning cuts • Old and recent heading cuts 55 • Lion's tailing (old & recent) • Right-angled new leaders • Poor taper of limbs • Limb curvature + TRACE Evaluation23 i : Part Target Risk Rated Defect25 Probability TRACE Risk! (most likely part to fail) (1-5) Size Rating Rating Description26 (1-3) (1-4) (1-12) (summarized) High 1, Issues -4" diameter limb, are clear- poor taper, lion's-4 2 3 9 retain but tailed. monitor annually. High 1, Issues -4" diameter limb, are clear- poor taper, lion's-4 2 3 9 retain but tailed. monitor annually. High 1, Issues -4" diameter are clear- sprouts, poor taper, 4 2 3 9 retain but lion's-tailed~ monitor annually. + + Page 8 of 38 August 5, 2010 Oryad,llC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park NOTE: Printed from GoogleEarth. Page 9 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us AugustS, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park There are photographs on the following pages of each entire tree, followed by examples of described negative conditions. Tree No.1 photographs include numerous examples, intended to illustrate the extent of such conditions, as is typical with all the trees. The photos of subsequent trees include only a few examples each. Page 11 of 38 August 5, 2010 Oryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Page 12 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Tree No.1 (continued) Page 150f38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Tree No.5: Manna gum (Eucalyptus vimina/is) Page 17of38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 . (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Tree No.6: Manna gum (Eucalyptus vimina/is) Page 190f38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Tree No.9: Manna gum (Eucalyptus viminalis) Page 21 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August5.2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Tree No11: Bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) Page 23 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Oryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park ) Tree No12: Bluegum (Eucalyptus globulus) Page 25 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us August 5, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park Tree No14: Bluegum (E uca/yptus g/obu/us) Page 29 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung@dryad.us AugustS, 2010 Dryad, LLC #10024-40006 City of Palo Alto Eleanor Pardee Park '\ j \ CREDENTIALS: • ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist ® No. 282 '. ISA Board Certified Master Arborist No. WE-0131 B • CUFC Certified Urban Forester No. 121 • PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor No. 602 • CA P.C. Qualified License No.: 10477;2 PROFFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS • American Society of Consulting Arborists • International Society of Arboriculture • Society of Commercial Arboriculture • Tree Care Industry Association • California Arborists Association • California Urban Forests Council • California Landscape Contractors Association , • California Oak Foundation • American Forests • Pesticide Applicators Professional Association • U.S. Green Building Council + + + Page 36 of 38 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Phone Fax E-mail (877) 206-4001 (510) 538-6001 tyoung @ dryad~us Attachment D SUbject: Notes from Eleanor Pardee Tree Mtg. on December 1, 2010 Eleanor Pardee Park Eucalyptus Meeting Lucie Stern Community Center, Fireside Room, 7pm Landscape Architect Eddie Chau presented three different replanting plans (A, B, and C). He explained that the point wasn't to vote on a particular plan, but rather about features that the audience likes and doesn't like. Eddie explained that he will synthesize the comments and look for trends. He will return for the Dec. 8th meeting and present a plan that reflects the comments he collected. The plan will address a few short comings in the park that aren't related to the trees. For example, there are currently three entry gates to the playground, yet there are only two paths to the playground. There are also no park benches in the vicinity of the playground, unless you go inside the fenced playground area. Along with the additional path, and two new park benches, the plan would address some American with Disabilities Act (ADA) issues in the multi-use bowl area. This time of year is a great time to plant trees. We would like to (if feasible) plant in January. There is currently no irrigation, so we would need to install irrigation. Question from Audience: What is the City's decision on the remaining trees? Answer: Structural issues make these trees a safety risk and liability to the City. The City is now liable if someone is hurt. The trees will eventually be removed. Torrey Young-presented a brief summary. These large trees are very close to targets. Pruning, done long ago, has caused structural problems that cannot be fixed. Recent pruning by City staff helped reduce risk, but the trees cannot be kept long term. Comment from Audience: The City arborist report had a different conclusion-stating that some of the trees could be retained. Comment from Audience: If a decision wasn't made at the last meeting, shouldn't we make the decision to remove or keep the trees now, before we talk about designing tree replanting? Answer: Trees have already been removed. Many people have expressed their strong feeling that the City must replant trees right away. These various replanting plans help us accomplish that goa/. Eddie Chau: He expressed his vision for the area in question. His plans are designed to help make the park safe; to determine pedestrian flow; to define the lawn edge and separate it from the tree/mulch areas; create shade; and utilize low water-use tree species. Plan A: Plant large shade trees with deciduous oaks, which will provide sunshine in the winter and shade in the summer. These would make a presence. There would be a combination of evergreen oaks and deciduous oaks to create visual interest. The entry to the playground would have smaller, flowering accent trees, identifying the entry to the path and playground. There would be a new path (composed of decomposed granite) that would link the two existing paths together, as well as to help define the lawn space. *This path element is part of all three plans. Question from audience: How long will it take before these trees are large enough to provide shade? Comment from audience: The fastest growing trees usually come from acorn or small (15 gallon) plantings, rather than the really large potted trees, which are often root-bound. A member of Canopy and a person who works as an arborist commented that they have seen smaller trees outgrow trees that were larger when planted. They also suggested Hungarian Oak trees that grow quickly. In ten years they can reach 35 to 40 feet tall. This species is a low water use variety. Comment from Audience: This feels absurd that we are rushing into this project. We are working to cut down trees because they are too tall, and we are rushing to plant new trees to grow big and tall. Why would we do this? Why don't we put a protective structure around the playground. Comment from Audience: The problem is that these particular trees have several problems: past pruning damage that irrevocably damaged the structure, decay from a fungus, and it is a species that frequently drops limbs. If we put in the right tree species, and prune it properly it would be fine. Plan B: This plan calls for removing the eucalyptus trees on Center Dr., and temporarily retaining the existing eucalyptus trees on Channing Ave. Plan C: This plan calls for replanting with all California native trees. Larger oaks would be more randomly placed. Comment from Audience: There are lots of children who have allergy problems that are exacerbated from trees that drop excessive pollen. There are also often problems of trees that drop nuts and things on the paths that cause problems for kids riding their bikes on the path. Also issues with kids tripping over tree roots. Please select species t~at help avoid these issues. Comment from Audience: Lighting concerns. It is very dark at night and it is a safety issue. She would like lighting to be added so that she knows nothing bad is going on in the park. Eddie: All the plans call for adding mulch around the trees, which will help the soil, as well as reduce tripping issues because people will not bike through the mulched areas. Comment from Audience: I live near the park and I would prefer to save the existing trees. I also suggest that we do not plant redwoods, because they use too much water. Comment from Audience: Will the City be using recycled water? Answer: No. The City only has potable water at Eleanor Pardee Park. Comment from Audience: Can you speak about cost estimates? Answer: It would cost about $20k to remove all the trees at one time. It would cost approximately $65K if we do it over a ten year period. We aren't prepared with cost estimates for the irrigation, path, or new trees. Comment from Audience: Canopy would be willing to help with the planting. Comment from Audience: I love the idea of the new path. Comment from Audience: A lot of City money has been spent on the existing trees. It is a concern about how much we are spending on these plans to remove them. Comment from Audience: The City set aside $200k for restrooms for this park, where did that money go? Answer: We are using that money for restrooms at Seale Park. Comment from Audience: Lots of us neighbors want the trees out right now; and for the City to replant right away. If we do it right now, it will not be long before the new trees fill in. Comment from Audience: We have letters and signatures on a petition from people who want to remove the trees. We were told the City would base its opinion on the third party arborist's (Torrey Young) report. The report was clear about removing the trees. The letters asked the City to fund a replanting plan. We are willing to help raise funds, too. Many of these people couldn't be here today. Comment from Audience: Please do not add lights in the park. There are existing street lights. Also please don't add benches. It leads to people hanging out late at night. Comment from Audience: I don't think benches will cause any probiems. I like the idea of adding benches. Comment from Audience: I like the idea of adding large shade trees on the corner. Comment from Audience: My preference is for Plan B. I prefer a phased removal. Another Comment seconded that idea. Comment from Audience: It might be nice if the trees were shorter so that we didn't just look at trunks of trees, but rather could see the canopy. Torrey stated that this has a lot to do with how the trees are pruned. It is good to keep the lower branches. Comment from Audience: I would like to see a phased approach to the removal. Keep the eucalyptus as long as possible. Comment from Audience: The redwoods use a lot of water, and there is an existing redwood that hasn't survived. Don't plant redwoods. I would prefer Plan A. It is more cost effective and there are less redwoods. Eddie: There is a clear consensus that we should not plant redwoods. Comment from Audience: I vote for option A. It is the most beautiful and takes a holistic approach. Eddie: I wanted to use a variety of shapes, sizes, and widths-all the plans have this variety of trees. This will provide different colors, life spans. This will change the uniform look of the trees that we currently have. Greg asked for a show of hands regarding who would prefer: Uniform look to the trees: minority raised their hands Variety of types of trees: majority raised their hands. Comment from Audience: What is the general distance from trunk to trunk of the trees in your plans? Answer: About 25 feet. Comment from Audience: I like that spacing. Comment from Audience: we could have kids do a fundraising project, like the tiles at Heritage Park. Comment from Audience: We could add some shrubs which would enhance the area, as well as to add some berms. It would be good to get rid of the flatness. Like to see a unique tree on the corner-like a large valley oak. Eddie: Liked the idea of mounds to help direct any vehicle traffic away from the trees. Comment from Audience: What are the next steps? Answer: Eddie will synthesize the comments and present them at the Dec. 8th meeting. Eddie will not be here, but City staff will present his plans. Then we would go to City Council and ask for money for this project. If we don't plant by January, then we would wait until Fall. Comment from Audience: Just don't take out the trees and then leave it empty. Don't remove anything else until you have money to replant. Comment from Audience: Who will make the decision about removing the trees? Answer: City staff will make a recommendation to Council. Council must approve the budget for this project. Comment from Audience: What is the point of the next meeting? Answer: To look over the revised replanting plans. The meeting was completed at 8:47pm Eleanor Pardee Tree Meeting Dec. 8th , 2010 Attachment E Lucie Stern Community Center Fireside Room Introduction by Community Services Director Greg Betts Mr. Betts presented the synthesized replanting plan created by Eddie Chau. The revised plan was created by incorporating the feedback from participants in the previous public meeting, where participants commented on aspects of the three replanting plans Mr. Chau had prepared for review. The feedback from the previous meeting resulted in the following features in the revised plan: ' -adjusted tree species: removed redwoods due to their high water requirements; added Hungarian Oak trees due to their quick growth -ensured that there aren't any high pollen producing trees; trees with hazardous roots; nor trees that drop excessive debris (seed pods, etc). -ensured that there were not shrubs planted; -ensured that Tree # 1 is saved due to its stature and distance from playground. -plan is designed to help guide maintenance vehicle traffic out oftree area; including berms. -pathway improvements -ensure shade is provided for playground -removed the two suggested benches, since there was no consensus -no additional lighting was added -ensured a variety of tree species -landmark tree on the corner -ensured tree spacing of approximately 25 to 30 feet -ensured that additional trees will not be taken down unless we have a plan in place to replant. '-ensure that the pathways are accessible. -ensure a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees; which will help provide shade in the summer, and sunlight in the winter. -ensure mulch around the tree areas, and not bare dirt. Six species of trees are suggested in this revised plan. These trees should be about 20-45 feet tall in about 8 to 10 years. Question: Has there been a decision to take down the 10 existing trees? Answer: yes. We will be doing it in a phased approach; essentially a modified Plan B (which was presented at the previous meeting) This plan removes the trees from Center Dr, with the excepting of Tree #1, and retains the trees 5 eucalyptus trees on Channing, where parking is not allowed. Tree #12, which is close to the playground, will be removed. Question: How was this decision determined, was it a vote? Answer: This decision was a compromise based on feedback from participants in our public meetings; feedback from the arborists. Comment: Tree #16 is the one that dropped iarge branches in the past. This isn't just about the playground. There is a lot of vehicle traffic in this area. The drastic pruning that was recently done makes these trees hazardous. Answer: Torrey Young, and Dave Muffly have both been consulted on this tree plan. Torrey is on board with this revised plan. He has reviewed this plan and supports it. Comment: Torrey, didn't you say that these trees should be removed? Answer: Torrey's report also says that the trees could be phased out. Question: What is the life span of these trees? Answer (Torrey Young): I Ccmnot give you a black and white answer about how long these trees will live. There is risk and I do not recommend that these trees stay indefinitely. There is always going to be risk with large trees. Comment: The general consensus was that there is no way of knowing when or if one of' these tree's limbs will fail. So you carmot say what the exact risk is. Comment: This is a major intersection and it is at risk from these trees. Since June, I've seen two more limbs drop. Please tell us about the pruning you plan to do for the remaining trees: Torrey: The first step will be further evaluation. We will carry out the Resistograph testing to look for the decay pathogen. Pruning will not make these trees better with time. There is still a chance of parts of the trees breaking. The pruning will help minimize that chance. What will you do if you find symptoms of decay? Torrey: Ifwe don't find decay now, it will not be there in five years. The decay pathogen is slow moving. The pruning will be focused on minimizing major limb failure. The pruning may be outside the industry standard in some situations. We will have to do more pruning to keep smaller limbs. Comment: This doesn't remove a serious risk. Answer: There are certain risks we live with. At Foothills Park we live with rattlesnakes. At the Pearson Arastradero Preserve we have mountain lions; at other areas in our open space there are ticks with Lyme disease. We live with certain risks: The cost to have Torrey conduct annual inspections on the remaining trees andto perform pruning will be $13,000 over a five year period. Comment: There were people who wanted these trees removed even before any of the science or arborist reports were conducted. Comment: I called Dave Muffly and asked if he would consult on these trees. I asked Dave because I know of his affiliation with Canopy Trees and that he is a tree lover. He did his evaluation and recommended that the trees be removed. This plan strives to minimize those risks. Comment: You should put up a fence to prevent people from going into the tre~ area Comment: I agree; a fence would be a good idea. Comment: Yes, and you could move the trail that leads to the playground, so that isn't in the area where limbs could drop on it; and add the fencing as well. Questions: Could you use guy wires to help prevent catastrophic limb failure? Answer (Torrey Young): In some places it is plausible, but wires can also cause problems. In some ways they can enhance the chance oflimb failure. It is possible, but it isn't a magic remedy; and it would not be appropriate for smaller limbs. The cost for the irrigation, pathways, trees, soil preparation, grinding of stumps will be approximately $33,000. There will also be an additional $13,000 for Torrey's inspections and pruning of the existing trees. Question: What are the species that Mr. Chau recommended in the revised plan? Answer: California Coast Live Oak, (which would grow approximately 25' high in ten years) Hungarian Oak (approximately 30' in ten years) California Buckeye (approximately 17' to 25' in ten years) (this is a deciduous tree) Arbutus Marina (approximately 17' to 25' in ten years) (this is an evergreen tree) Valley Oak (approximately 30'iri ten years) Persian Ironwood (approximately 25' in ten years) * Arborist noted that all these growth estimates are extremely rough. Question: Would the faster growing trees be more likely to drop limbs than slower growing trees. Answer: Oak trees are typically very good about not dropping limbs. Comment: I represent Canopy Trees and I am surprised by this plan. Our recommendation is to remove all the eucalyptus trees at one time. If you are going to phase them, why don't you have a plan for their eventual replacement? Answer: We would usethis existing plan as a template for how to replace the trees. We would use the recommended species list and tree spacing. Comment: I am disappointed that redwood trees aren't part of this revised plan. Answer: The biggest issue with the redwood trees is that they are high water use trees. Question: I have a question about Tree #16. Do the arborists have concerns about this tree? Answer (Torrey): The· plan is to monitor all the trees once per year. Of all the trees in question, this was one of the best candidates for retention. Summary: This completes our public meetings on the eucalyptus trees at Eleanor Pardee Park. The next step is that this plan will go to City Council to request that $33,000 be moved into an existing Capital Improvement Project (CIP) account to pay for carrying out the plan. Question: Will the changes that we suggested regarding moving the path and adding the fencing be part of the revised Plan B that you recommend to Council? Answer: Yes. Closing Comments: Good job Closing Comments: This seems like a good compromise between all the different factions. Closing Comments: It looks good. Closing Comments: It wasn't what I wanted, but you guys made an effort. Good luck with it.. Closing Comments: I appreciate the work. EricKrebs, City of Palo Alto 3201 East Bayshore Rd. Palo Alto CA 94303 Attachment F 10024-40006 RE.: Eleanor Pardee Park, phased removal plan proposed by City of Palo Alto. Mr. Krebs, et al; I am writing as per your request for a response to the City of Palo Alto's (The City) intent to implement a phased removal1 of the subject ten Eucalyptus trees at Eleanor Pardee Park. My understanding of The City's plan is as follows: 1. Prompt removal of four specific trees (Nos. 5,6, 9 and 12)2. The criteria upon which The City is basing this decision on is to reduce the risk of falling limbs from trees nos. 5, 6 and 9 into the adjacent curb parking area, and tree no. 12 into the fenced play area. 2. Retain six specific trees (Nos. 1, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16), for an estimated period of at least five years. These trees are to be subject to a prompt further, individual evaluation, and if determined by The City to be retained at that point, to be re-inspected annually relative to condition changes and maintenance recommendations for a proposed period of at least five years. Your (The City's) plan has the potential, while eliminating risk from the four trees to be removed and mitigating the aesthetic impact of removing these sUbstantial trees, also reduces the risk of those to remain. In company with my Management Recommendations (page 5, Dryad, LLC report no. 1024- 4006,08/06/10), this plan is consistent with my management option no. 1 (page 2, Dryad, LLC report no. 1024-4006,08/06/10). However, I do not endorse the retention of any trees for an extended period of time without implementing the recommended further investigation and prioritization. I emphatically recommend the implementation, in their entirety, the evaluation items of the Management Recommendations I provided (page 5, items 1 a-d), before committing to retain any of these trees. The remaining Management Recommendations (items 1 e-g) should then be implemented in their entirety for those trees selected to remain. The advanced evaluation processes may also reveal conditions that would warrant prompt removal, or removal within the five years minimum targeted retention duration. I reiterate from my report, that the measures described above' and in my report can reduce the risk of failure, but cannot eliminate it. Further, these trees cannot be improved structurally in a manner that would warrant indefinite, long-term preservation. Please refer to my original report for more detailed explanations of tree conditions and Management Recommendations. ' ReSpectf~IIYI ~ Torre 0 g. Raa:u ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist ® No. 282 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist No. WE-0131B CUFC Certified Urban Forester No. 121 PNW-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor No. 602 consulted in the development of the described "phased removal plan", or any further evaluation or retained beyond what is reported in y original report (08/05/10). consistent with the identification numbers in the Dryad, LLC report of 0-8/05/10. 35570 Palomares Rd. PHONE (877) 206-4001 Castro Valley CA 94552 FAX (510) 538-6001 E-MAIL tyoung@dryad.us Eric Krebs City of Palo Alto 3201 East 8ayshore Rd. Palo Alto CA 94303 Attachment H C' f , ' RE.: Proposal for further and continuing evaluation and reporting of six specific Eucalyptus trees ((Nos. 1, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16) at Eleanor Pardee Park. Mr. Krebs; I am writing in response to your request for a proposal for further evaluation of six specific Eucalyptus trees (Nos. 1, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16)1 at Eleanor Pardee Park. My understanding is that the City of Palo Alto (The City) intends to implement a plan2 to retain these specific trees for an estimated minimum of five years, while removing four other remaining trees (Nos. 5, 6, 9 and 12). It is my understanding that you specifically require the following services for trees Nos. 1, 11, 13, 14, 15 and t6: SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Visual inspection and evaluation on a tree-by-tree basis, from the ground. 2. Specification for and direction of root crown excavation (via air spade or other agreed method), as deemed necessary, to be performed by City staff in advance or concurrently with Resi. testing, to expose at least 50% of the upper circumference of buttress roots to at least a 24" radius from the trunks. 3. Resistograph® testing3, to be performed at the base of each trunk circumferentially and at any specific location suggesting decay or fractures, as well as vertically on significant supporting roots (estini~te of approximately 4-8 Resi. test sites per tree). Determined sound wood depths to be used to diagram any discovered significant decayed areas (only). 4. Prioritize trees for removal based upon plan duration, City tolerance of risk and tree condition. S. Individualized recommendations for trees to be retained (pruning, cabling, treatment, etc.) 6. A (single) formal written report of my findings, observations, opinions and recommendations. 7. Annual re-inspection and updating of prioritization and management recommendations, for a period of five years (five additional events through 2015). Inspection criteria will be a visual inspection and evaluation from the ground, with recommendations for additional investigation if deemed appropriate 8. Terms and intent for inspections and recommendations: Resistograph® testing, root crown excavation and management recommendations shall be performed and developed in cooperation with the City Arborists, including annual re-inspections and reporting. COST ESTIMATES4: Items 1-6: I propose performing this work at my current Commercial Rate of $180.00 per hour plus expenses, as per the terms in the attached Fee Schedule. I estimate field, office and related time and expenses will be approximately $4,440.00. Item 7: I propose performing this work at my Commercial Rate, currently being charged at the time the service is performed, otherwise as per the terms in the attached Fee Schedule. Including an estimated 3% inflation factor over each of five years, I estimate field, office and related time and expenses will be approximately $8,892.00. "".,..,.,.. .. ,.. for all described services over the total five years is $13, 332.004• 35570 Palomares Rd. Castro Valley CA 94552 Page 1 of3 PHONE (877) 206-4001 FAX (510) 538-6001 E-MAIL tyoung@dryad.us