Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 2125 Story St. Tree Removal Appeal TREE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW A TREE REMOVAL APPEAL OF THE CITY ARBORIST’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF TWO (2) SHAMEL ASH (FRAXINUS UHDEI) TREES LOCATED AT 2125 STORY STREET, IN THE PARKWAY NEAR CORNER OF SANDERCOCK AND STORY FILE NUMBER: APPL-0289-2024 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2125 STORY ST FROM: Walter Gault, Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist Phone Number: (805) 781-7578 Email: wgault@slocity.org APPELLANT: Chris Bonin REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Lasserre RECOMMENDATION Review a Tree Removal Appeal of the City Arborist’s decision to deny tree removals based on consistency with the City’s Tree Regulations and reach a final decision to either uphold the Arborist’s decision or approve the removal with a compensatory replanting plan. 1.0 APPEAL DESCRIPTION Chris Bonin (Appellant) of San Luis Coastal Unified School District, has appealed a denial of tree removal at Hawthorne Elementary School. On 4/23/24, a tree removal application for Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation of (2) two Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash) trees at 2125 Story Street was received. On 5/14/24 the City Arborist denied the request because it did not conform to circumstances outlined in Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(1)(a- g). Sidewalk repair and pruning were recommended alternatives to alleviate the concerns of the applicant. On 5/22/24, Chris Bonin appealed the decision to deny. This appeal occurred within 10 days from the City Arborist’s decision, and it is appealable to the Tree Committee. Meeting Date: 6/24/2024 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 20 Minutes Figure 1: location of (2) trees Page 9 of 45 Item 4a APPL-0289-2023 (2125 Story St.) Tree Committee Report – June 24, 2024 2.0 COMMITTEE PURVIEW The Tree Committee’s role is to review the decision and its consistency with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (SLOMC) Section 12.24 (Tree Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(a-g)) and provide a final decision to the appellant that either reaffirms the City Arborist’s denial or issues an approval for removal with a compensatory replanting plan. 3.0 TREE REGULATIONS The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) was adopted in 2010 and recently updated in 2019 with the purpose of establishing a comprehensive program for installing, maintaining, and preserving trees within the City. This ordinance establishes policies, regulations, and specifications necessary to govern installation, maintenance, removal, and preservation of trees to beautify the city; to purify the air; to provide shade and wind protection; to add environmental and economic value; and to preserve trees with historic or unusual value. Criteria for Appeal of Non-Construction Related Tree Removal Recommendations. SLOMC §12.24.180 subsection B requires review by the Tree Committee for denied tree removal requests that have been appealed related to Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation and make a recommendation based on criteria set forth in SLOMC §12.24.090. Applicable criteria are provided below.  (E)(1)(a). The tree is an imminent hazard to life or property, and removing it is the only feasible way to eliminate the hazard (see subsection (I)(2) of this section for director approval of immediate hazard abatement without a formal application or noticing; removals pursuant to this subsection (E)(1)(a) and subsection (I)(2) of this section are not appealable).  (E)(1)(b). The tree is dead or dying or diseased or damaged beyond reclamation.  (E)(1)(c). The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage .  (E)(1)(d). The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan.  (E)(1)(e). The tree is densely clustered amongst other trees and the requested tree removal promotes good arboricultural practice.  (E)(1)(f). The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; public traffic). Trees requested for removal due to sidewalk infrastructure damage shall have lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structures that increase the likelihood that damage will recur if the tree is not approved for removal and where trees requested for removal are adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use and/or with large vertical or slope displacements. Page 10 of 45 Item 4a APPL-0289-2023 (2125 Story St.) Tree Committee Report – June 24, 2024  (E)(1)(g). The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. Findings from Letter of Denial: 1. The proposed tree removal request is inconsistent with the Tree Regulations because the proposed tree removals do not conform to the circumstances outlined in Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(1)(a-g). a. The two trees proposed for removal are not an imminent hazard to life or property, dead or dying, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan, densely clustered amongst other trees, obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic, nor demonstrate an ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. b. The two trees proposed for tree removal have caused damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it is not severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. Although the trees are growing into overhead power, data and fiber lines, Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(1) does not list this as a circumstance in which a tree may be removed. Pruning is a feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. 4.0 ACTIONS 4.1 Recommend findings of consistency with the Tree Regulations. An action recommending approval of the appeal based on consistency with the Tree Regulations (SLOMC Section 12.24). An approval of the appeal should include a compensatory replanting plan. 4.2 Recommend findings of inconsistency with the Tree Regulations. An action recommending denial of the appeal should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Tree Regulations, or other policy documents. 4.3 Recommend action for continuance. 5.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Tree Removal Application for 2125 Story St. (TREE-0200-2024) B - Compensatory Replanting Plan 2125 Story St. C - Tree Removal Application Denial Letter 2125 Story St. D - Tree Removal Appeal Form for 2125 Story (APPL -0289-2024) Page 11 of 45 Page 12 of 45 Page 13 of 45 Page 14 of 45 Page 15 of 45 Page 16 of 45 Page 17 of 45 Page 18 of 45 Page 19 of 45 Page 20 of 45 Page 21 of 45 Page 22 of 45 From: Gault, Walter Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 11:14 AM To: David Lasserre; Niles, Nick Cc: C Bonin Subject: RE: Hawthorne Elementary, Tree Replanng Schedule Hi Dave, Thank you for providing this replanting plan to complete your tree removal application. We will begin processing and you should expected to hear back within 4 weeks. Best Regards, Walter Gault Urban Forestry Program Coordinator / City Arborist City of San Luis Obispo Community Development 919 Palm St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E wgault@slocity.org T 805.781.7578 From: David Lasserre <dlasserre@slcusd.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2024 1:13 PM To: Gault, Walter <wgault@slocity.org>; Niles, Nick <NNILES@slocity.org> Cc: C Bonin <cbonin@slcusd.org> Subject: Hawthorne Elementary, Tree Replanng Schedule This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Good aernoon Walter Thank you for meeng with me yesterday and sharing the city's view on tree removal and the importance of replanng. As I shared with you, the two large Ash trees that are located in front of Hawthorne Elementary in the drop off and pick up area are creang a hazard for our students and staff. These trees have large roots that are liing and cracking the surrounding concrete sidewalks and curbs creang a tripping hazard. Many of the upheaved secons of sidewalk concrete have required high spot grinding to prevent falls and allow people with disabilies to navigate this broken hardscape. This grinding has created areas where the concrete is becoming thinner than ideal and may lead to even more problems in the future. Periodically these two trees drop large branches and we are concerned that a child could be struck by falling limbs. We are also concerned that these two trees have engulfed the power, data, and fiber lines that we rely on to provide a safe learning environment. Per your request we've researched exisng tree species on or near our campus to add to our replanng plan. We have found Lagerstroemia Faurei (Japanese Crape Myrtle) on site, and they Page 23 of 45 appear to do well in this area. If this is acceptable with the city we would like to plant them in place of the removed Ash trees. Planng schedule: 1 Japanese Crape Myrtle, 24" box, to replace Ash tree #1. 1 Japanese Crape Myrtle, 24" box, to replace Ash tree #2 Planng would take place the first week of November. Thanks again for your me on this maer, and please let me know If I can provide you with any other necessary informaon. -- Dave Lasserre Project Manager San Luis Coastal Unified School District 937 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 dlasserre@slcusd.org Cell (925)360-0548 Page 24 of 45 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org May 14, 2024 Sent via email San Luis Coastal Unified School District Buildings, Grounds & Transportation Department c/o Chris Bonin 937 Southwood Drive San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: TREE-0200-2024 (2125 Story Road) Review of proposed removal of two (2) Fraxinus udei (Shamel Ash) trees Dear Chris Bonin, On April 23, 2024, the City received your submittal for the removal of two (2) Fraxinus udei (Shamel Ash) trees at 2125 Story Road. The proposed tree removal request is related to Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation and is therefore subject to Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E). In accordance with the Code, the proposed tree removal request is subject to City Arborist review. On May 14, 2024, I reviewed your request and consistency of the tree removal application with city policies and standards applicable to the site. After careful consideration, I have denied your request based on the findings below. Findings: 1. The proposed tree removal request is inconsistent with the Tree Regulations because the proposed tree removals do not conform to the circumstances outlined in Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(1)(a-g). a. The two trees proposed for removal are not an imminent hazard to life or property, dead or dying, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan, densely clustered amongst other trees, obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic, nor demonstrate an ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. b. The two trees proposed for tree removal have caused damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it is not severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. Although the trees are growing into overhead power, data and fiber lines, Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E)(1) does not list this as a circumstance in which a tree may be removed. Pruning is a feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. My action is final unless appealed within 10 calendar days from the date of the decision. Anyone may appeal the action by submitting a letter to the Community Development Department within the time specified. The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal documentation. Appeals will be Page 25 of 45 scheduled for the first available Tree Committee meeting date. If an appeal is filed, you will be notified by email of the date and time of the hearing. If you have any questions, or if you need additional information, contact me by phone at (805) 781- 7578 or by email at wgault@slocity.org. Sincerely, Walter Gault City Arborist Community Development Page 26 of 45 @ CITTOF sflnlulsoBrspo Gity Staff to complete. Note: Fee must accompany original signed appealform Received by: YV\-a-t-l.-o'q Pr.-{r.-l Date----TI-6l>t- I zoill TREE REMOVAL APPEAL FORM Gommun ity Development Department SECI/ON 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION Chris Bonin 937 Southwood Dr. SLO CA 93401 Name 1(805)5e6-4105 Mailing Address cbonin@slcusd.org Phone Email ln accordance with the procedures set forth in Ghapter 12.24.180 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, I hereby appeal the decision of the: City Arborist- Tree Removal Application 12.24.090 (EX2) (appealed to Tree Committee) {Appeal: $140.80 City Arborist- Tree Removal Application 12.24.090 (FX1) (appealed to the Community Development Director) Appeal: $140.80 Community Development Director- Tree RemovalApplication 12.24.090 (FX2) (appealed to the City Council) Appeal: $140.80 Community Development Director or Hearing Officer- Tree RemovalApplicalion 12.24.090 (EX3) (appealed to the City Council) Appeal: $140.80 Planning Commission- Tree RemovalApplication 12.24.090 (EX4) (appealed to the City Council) Appeal: $140.80 Page 27 of 45 SECI/ON 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL: The date the decision being appealed was rendered 5."14.24 Tree Removal address 2125 SIory Rd. SLO CA 93401 Application number:Tree-A2OA-2024 Explain specifically what action(s) you are appealing and why you believe your appeal should be considered. You may attach additional pages, if necessary: Dear Tree Committae Mombers, District. The denial of our application tor tree removal has raised concerns about salety and accessibility for our students, staff, and the community. Tho tollowing points outline our reasons for appealing lhis decision: Elementary School. about tha salety ol €veryone who uses the school entrance. this issue mors etfectively. Our proposed solution is as follows: Tres Removal: We respectfully request ihe rsmoval of th€ two large and destructive Ash tre€s. Once removed, we can proceed with n€cessary repairs to the sidewalk. Myrtlos at the Districts expense. Thess trees are known for their aeslhetic appeal and manageable size, ensuring a sal€r environmenl lor everyone. Sidewalk Repairs: The District would commit to covering the €xpenses associated with repairing the sidewalk. Our primary goal is to creat€ a safe and welcoming €nvironmenl for all students, staff, and visitors. Thank you lor your attenlion to this matter. We appreciate your consideration and hop€ lor a favorable resolution. Sincoraly Chris Bonin Director of Faciliti€s, Grounds and Transportation 5.22.24 Signature of Appellant Date Page 28 of 45 Chapter 12.24.'180 APPEALS Section 12.24180 Appeals A. Any person aggrieved by an act or determination of the authorized approving authority exercising the authority herein granted shall have the right to appeal the decision of the authorized approving authority as set forth in this section. B. Appeals received by the city clerk within ten calendar days from the date of determination or act shall cause the director to withhold tree removal permits and any permits for construction or demolition activity relying on the subject tree removal until the appeal is heard and a decision is reached. Removal Application Type Decision Maker Appeal Body lmminent Hazard to Life or Property Section 1 2.24.090 (EX1 Xa)City Arborist No Appeal Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation 12.24.090 City Arborist Tree Committee Minor Ministerial Development Permit (removal for a residential or accessory construction on an R-1 or R-2 lot) Section 1 2.24.090 (FX1 ) City Arborist Community Development Director Ministerial Development Permits Section 1 2.24.090 (FX2) Community Development Director City Council Discretionary Permits (Director Action/ Director Hearing/ Minor and Moderate Development Review/ Minor Use Permit/ Minor Subdivision) Section 1 2.24.090(FX3) Community Development Director or Hearing Officer Planning Commission Major Development Review/Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit Section 1 2.24.090(FX4) Planning Commission City Council The San Luis Obispo Municipal Gode is current through Ordinance 1662 and fegislation passed through May 7, 2019. Disclaimer: The City Clerk's Office has the official version of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Users should contact the City Clerk's Office for ordinances passed subsequent to the ordinance cited above. City Website: www.slocity.orq City Telephone: (805) 781-7100 Code Publishinq Companv Page 29 of 45 Page 30 of 45 1 Appeal of City Arborist’s decision to deny the request to remove two (2)Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei)located at 2125 Story Street (TREE-0200-2024) Appellant: Chris Bonin Representative: Dave Lasserre Item 1: APPL-0289-2024 (2125 Story Street) June 24, 2024 2 Tree Committee Focus of Review Review the appeal of the denial of proposed tree removal request regarding its consistency with the policies and standards set forth in the Tree Regulations (San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 12.24.090(E) Tree Health and Hazard Mitigation). Reach a final decision on the appeal. 3 Location •2125 Story Street •Hawthorne Elementary School •San Luis Coast Unified School District •School entrance, loading zone, near the corner of Sandercock and Story 4 Proposed Tree Removals (2) Fraxinus udehi “Shamel Ash” “Evergreen Ash” 5 Proposed Tree Removals 6 Compensatory Planting •The appellant is proposing to replant trees at a 1:1 ratio. •(2) 24 inch-gallon Lagerstromia fauriei (Japanese Crape Myrtle) •Appellant is also proposing to replace sidewalk at own expense 7 Summary of Applicable Criteria 12.24.090(E)(1)(a-g) •(c): The roots of both trees are causing damage to public infrastructure. Sidewalk has cracks due to root damage and panels have been shaved. The curb is also starting to protrude into the road but not enough to warrant replacement. Is removing the trees the only feasible way to eliminate the damage? •(d): Trees are not affected by structural defects or deficiencies that will limit lifespan. Does the presence of defects or deficiencies mean that lifespan will be limited? •(f): Are trees reducing mobility of public traffic? Tree species is known to have invasive root structure. Trees are not vigorous. Does the location lower preservation priority? •(g): Does sidewalk mitigation exceed accepted routine tree maintenance? •https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/12.24.090(E) 8 Summary of Appeal Form 12.24.090(E)(1)(a-g) •(c): The roots of both trees are causing damage to public infrastructure. Sidewalk has been cracked and lifted, creating trip hazards. •(d): Structural defects cause branch breakage during storms and high winds •(f): Root system causing significant Public Right-of-Way Obstruction •(g): Sidewalk repair diverts resources and time away from other essential tasks https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/12.24.090(E) 9 Tree Committee Actions Recommend findings of consistency with the Tree Regulations. An action recommending approval of the appeal based on consistency with the Tree Regulations (SLOMC Section 12.24). The Tree Committee may provide specific direction on compensatory replanting plan. Recommend findings of inconsistency with the Tree Regulations. An action recommending denial of the appeal which would uphold the City Arborist’s findings for denial based on inconsistency with the General Plan, Tree Regulations, or other policy documents. Continue the project to a hearing date certain, or uncertain. An action continuing the application should include direction to the appellant and staff on pertinent issues. 9 10 Criteria for Health & Hazard Tree Removals •SLOMC §12.24.090(E)(1) •(c). The tree’s roots are causing severe damage to public or private property, and removing the tree is the only feasible way to eliminate the damage. •(d). The tree is affected by structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan. 11 Criteria for Health & Hazard Tree Removals •SLOMC §12.24.090(E)(1) •(f). The tree is obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic (see Section 12.24.030, Definitions; public traffic). Trees requested for removal due to sidewalk infrastructure damage shall have lower preservation priority when the tree species is known to have invasive root structures that increase the likelihood that damage will recur if the tree is not approved for removal and where trees requested for removal are adjacent to sidewalks with a high volume of pedestrian use and/or with large vertical or slope displacements. •(g). The requested tree removal is necessary to alleviate a demonstrated and ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. z 2125 Story Street Tree Removal Appeal Hawthorne Elementary School; San Luis Coast Unified School District Sam Oakley ISA Board Certified Master Arborist WE-9474B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist z2125 Story Street Tree Removal Application April 2024 §San Luis Coastal Unified School District requested to remove two (2) Fraxinus uhdei (Shamel Ash) – April 2024 §Replace the Ash with two (2)24-inch box Lagerstroemia faurei (Japanese Crape Myrtle) Reasoning for removal: located directly in front of Hawthorne Elementary, the ash are creating risk for hazardous hardscape issues, potential limb failure conditions (Email April2 5, 2024) z2125 Story Street Tree Removal Application Denial May 2024 §City of San Luis Obispo denied the removal of the 2 Shamel Ash Reasoning for denial: the request was inconsistent with the Tree Regulations outline in MC Section 12.24.090 (E)(1)(a-g) (Letter May 14, 2024) z2125 Story Street Tree Removal Application Denial CoSLO Response: The two trees proposed for removal are not an imminent hazard to life or property, dead or dying, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan, densely clustered amongst other trees, obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic, nor demonstrate as ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. The two trees are proposed for tree removal have caused damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it is not severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. Although the trees are growing into overhead power, data and fiber lines, MC 12.24.090 (E)(1) does not list this as a circumstance in which a tree may be removed. Pruning is a feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. z2125 Story Street Tree Removal Application Denial CoSLO Response: The two trees proposed for removal are not an imminent hazard to life or property, dead or dying, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan, densely clustered amongst other trees, obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic, nor demonstrate as ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. The two trees are proposed for tree removal have caused damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it is not severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. Although the trees are growing into overhead power, data and fiber lines, MC 12.24.090 (E)(1) does not list this as a circumstance in which a tree may be removed. Pruning is a feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. §SLCUSD files an appeal May 22, 2024 §Hires The Oakley Group to review the application and subsequent denial and present our findings z Objective Demonstrate why the subject trees need to be removed z Objective Demonstrate why the subject trees need to be moved: 1) They do, in fact, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan 2)They are causing damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it IS severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are NOT feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. 3) Although the trees are growing into overhead power, data and fiber lines, MC 12.24.090 (E)(1) does not list this as a circumstance in which a tree may be removed. Pruning is a NOT feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. z2125 Story Street Tree Removal Application Denial CoSLO Response: The two trees proposed for removal are not an imminent hazard to life or property, dead or dying, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan, densely clustered amongst other trees, obstructing vision, access, or mobility of public traffic, nor demonstrate as ongoing maintenance burden for the property owner exceeding routine tree maintenance. The two trees are proposed for tree removal have caused damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it is not severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. Although the trees are growing into overhead power, data and fiber lines, MC 12.24.090 (E)(1) does not list this as a circumstance in which a tree may be removed. Pruning is a feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. z Objective Demonstrate why the subject trees are required to be moved: 1)They do, in fact, contain structural defects and/or deficiencies that will limit lifespan & 3) Pruning is NOT feasible alternative that could help adjust the interaction of wires with the tree. z Existing Conditions of 2 Ash Tree 1 (left) & Tree 2 (right): planted in 1980 z Tree1 Tree 2 Growing Space: 54” wide x 61” long 43” wide x 183” long Limited Growing Space z Tree1 Tree 2 Visible Decay On Surface Roots & Root Flare/Lower Trunk Decay In Root Flare z Tree1 Tree 2 Both Trees have been topped in the past Codominant branch attachment prone to failure in ash Weak Trunk & Branch Attachments z Tree1 Tree 2 Extensive crown dieback Crowns have been topped in the past Crown Dieback z Objective Demonstrate why the subject trees are required to be moved: 2) They are causing damage to the sidewalks and curbs, but it IS severe enough to justify removal. Other measures or strategies such as sidewalk repair and minor root pruning are NOT feasible alternatives that could alleviate the damage rather than removing the trees. z Tree1 Tree 2 Tree roots lifting & cracking the surrounding concrete sidewalks Sidewalk Damage z Planned for Summer 2024 Prior to Fall Trimester Tree roots lifting & cracking the surrounding concrete sidewalks Sidewalk Damage Repair z Proposed Sidewalk Repair Planed for Summer 2024 prior to Fall 2024 trimester: §Requires excavating down at least 8”, likely 10”, for subbase material §Compaction is required §Over-excavation is often required §Pruning of structural oblique and any present lateral roots Tree1 Tree 2 z Proposed Sidewalk Repair Issues surrounding root pruning: §Smiley 2008: Arborists should avoid cutting any tree roots near the trunk. Linear trenching should not be closer to the trunk than a distance equal to or greater than three times the trunk diameter. Pruning any closer than 3x diameter WILL result in tree failure. §Benson 2020: The primary function of roots is to provide water & solute transport, secondary is structural. Root loss both impacts health & structure of a tree. z Proposed Sidewalk Repair Issues surrounding root pruning: §PRUNING WILL OCCUR NEXT TO THE TRUNK ON BOTH TREES §WELL WITHIN THE 3X DIAMETER z Proposed Sidewalk Repair Matheny & Clark 2009: §Trees are optimized structures §Trees are shedding organisms §When the wind blows hard, trees fail §Hazard & Risk are not the same §Risk Assessment involves judgement §Feelings about risk drive decisions 2” limb shed onto the bicycle parking z What is a Hazard & What is Risk? Risk Hazard z Willingness to accept risk varies, however: §ash trees are in front of school at drop-off/pick-up zone §school is occupied during months/season with highest probability for severe to extreme weather events §demonstrated root damage to hardscape that needs to and will be mitigated §history of maintenance: high-spot grinding has also caused a need for hardscape repair §mitigation will further compromise structure & health of trees that have been demonstrated to be marginal at best §level of Risk accepted for Zone 1 defects: NO COMPROMISE – NO DOUBT (CODER 1990) What level of risk does SLOUSD accept? z I recommend approving the appeal based on the observed decay in the root flare and the pruning this is to occur directly next to the trunk within the next month. The school district should not have to accept the level of risk being impose by the denial of the Tree Removal Permit: Recommend findings of consistency with Tree Regulations. An action recommending approval of the appeal based on consistency with the Tree Regulations (SLOMC Section 12.24). An approval of the appeal should include a compensatory replanting plan. Recommendation z Please let me know if you have any questions Thank you!