The URL can be used to link to this page

TR-2017-15 Arborist Report.pdf pN1N-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor#1188 ��/ ��l�*J I ff��1 1 5�p 5.Sh�ir�lin�ChoCi. I�,A C�rtified ArGarist�WE-0�32A �' 4 �� L�4 M�i��. '�.�i„Vi�yv,CA�404r-i��`.� wwu4�.rrnarbarist.com • a�� * Tcl: 650.964.7664 � ehl!�i[:rayr�rrrEa�b�rist.�orrs Mobilc: 415.41�.11�7 Contract Arborist Services Ray Morneau, Arborist Tree Inspection Summary 650.964.7664/415.412.1127 Site: 22016 Linda Vista Place, Cupertino, California Contractor:Ralph Saviano (Via Builders) Inspeetor: Ray Morneau, ISA Certified Arborist#WE-o132A Inspection Date: 12/12/2016 Report Date: 12/15/2016 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1.0 Assignment, Introduction, & Summary 1.1 Assignment & Introduction: This remodel `'- �-�'��_ " �� ' � - `� _ _ ��-��'�,e a =� project has a Atlas cedar tree (Cedrus --�� _� atlantica) at the north end of the backyard. ' �� ' �..� � '� .�'�, ''; �a '�r � Via Builders inquired as to the status of this k �� - �� ";�=:_��`E'�� . I { tree. Ralph Saviano contacted me for a '- > �' � " .�' '- �`�,�:�'" 'r V ��I I status report. ,� � k� -- � �, k x �� ` P-1 (at right) The location of subject ' �"'�'�7 � � � " Atlas cedar tree (Cedrus atlantica) �, � � ' �- � '� at the north corner of this irregulariy- ,, 'f � � � � � , shaped property. r �'�`� •��'_ � �� ' � �� , ��:�" �'-° �' ,; �[3L��i�'4 ' ° '� �� ` ,'Ay; 1.2 Summarv: Per the status table and '�'` � -� �t� �' �`t� � �' 'I discussion below, this Atlas cedar tree �,�, � ��'`��'�- ; _� , '� � (Cedrus atlantica) measures up to be a � ` � -�-�► ,��'=�� ' - � _ "'� EF�. ° "protected Tree" (>10" diameter) within the �. � City of Cupertino Municipal Code and is not �� ,�� ' � � � � native to this area-but it is irrecoverably � ; �° �'"'� � � _ - v � �:� :;--��d deteriorating and declining due to line �-`-m . :�Y � ' ' clearance pruning to accommodate high �� _ ��-� ' - �� voltage power lines. � ��i,. � �� __ n ,+ � ', , ' . ' Recent limb breakage and plans to add a nre � - �` � - �� pool house close to this tree are two flags ` ""' �"' ''" ' """" "' ' "�' pointing to challenges for this tree. � Summary Conclusion: Line clearance pruning is destined to continue causing structure problems for this cedar. The new pool house foundation and/or slab at about 5-feet from this root flare will disrupt art least 35% of this root system. Removal is the only reasonable long-term option. There are many replacement species from which to choose, I propose some suggestions below. � Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664 2.0 Observations & Discussion: P-2 (below, left) Red oval outlines lop-sided P-3 (below, right) standing near root flare, looking foliage crown. Red line overlays main up along main trunk—through co-dominant trunk. White arrows overlay main co- poorly attached secondary competing leaders dominant secondary leaders. above line clearance topping cut. � - ---- e�'� R� ,��.`�" ��"- � ,k .� �a�� ,, ,� � ��.� h ,.: ��`'�°�� , ` . � ,�� ;, �,� a�� °"� ; y°' ,�z`�"� � . �'� f �-, _ ; � - r � �� t ;� s �� •� ry,� ;• ��. � �� . .. � ��/`��3��''� ` ��y y��.�.."�y �� 4 � �.��, ,Jf� $ ,�� " �,- F� . ' �'�`3k ��"-� ��y .-'��+y'��,.I��" � �d'� ,,� : f�`' � ' ''�.�-��i7:rr�.�n, .s ��IV ' x d ;�,.s e�;m� {�w,t. � „ : �ti� o �.'� + � � '��3� � 4� lo. - � '7"^'."�r� �� .��+� .< �.'k; �v�;�''�'�, � � f ' ��, �r� . �ti . :�7+m;�e '�'4..' �h� � - �-' f � : ��'�'-� � �'!'. . '',�r ^411r„ a '� '(� ..^a � � ♦ -�� . ;� 4�� r_ ' �,'7� � ��.��'� �_ �` _'Y � .�': 'f " h RM��" � '-8 h5 �Y � , .L�t t Y � • p� • � .♦ � ��- �t� � ^W _ . .. r . F �{. �� _� �,¢� .t' F � �Vp� f� � �^�`�' $ 4 d ,"s P / ��N �c �Y�. . . � �, �'"�`-, �� "��i � �� <,�` ,,��r��'��. r�� _� �""� �:.t �.��=�i _'� . . . tr''�'"?�'-�^�.�"�S ��. 2.1 Cedar Tree's Status Table: Cedar#1 Cedrus atlantica (Atlas Cedar) Diameter at standard 4.5 feet 31.2" Circumference at standard 4.5 feet 98.0" Height �48" Foliage crown radius (averaged) �25' Vigor rating 45% (Poor) Structure/physics rating 15% (Very Poor) Overall condition rating 30% (Poor) Structure/physical problems Repeatedly severely pruned by line clearing. Insects, disease present Lilcely decay at topping cut(s). Distance to house porch 62' Back brick fence (school) 13' Recommendation Remove/Replant 2.2 Cedrus atlantica (cedar)trees, although native to the Atlas Mountain Range in North Africa(separating the Mediterranean and Atlantic coastlines from the Sahara Desert), typically perform well here in Cupertino's Mediterranean climate. 2.3 Species Question: There is no doubt but that all botanica] keys classify this tree as a true cedar(genus Cedrus). However, the species is not so clear. Dr. Pijut, studying cedars as a forestry professional (a silviculturist), found no distinguishing gene marker that separates them (Pijut, 2000). Nevertheless, in the same journal article, citing work by Michael Dirr, Atlas cedars were Dec. 12, 2016 Cedar status report: 22106 Linda Vista PI., Cupertino, CA. Page#2 of 7. � Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664 identified as: "Young trees appear stiff, with an erect leader and an overall pyramidal shape, but with maturity this species assumes a flat-topped habit with horizontally spreading branches (Dirr 1990)". On the other hand, deodar cedars were distinguished from the other species by drooping leaders and longer leaves that are 2 to 6 cm in length(0.8 to 2.4 in.) (Hillier 1991). Since this subject cedar appears to have shorter needles (13mm to 30mm) and be more stiff and erect than others in town, my opinion is swayed in favor of using the specific epithet "atlantica" (as Atlas cedar). 2.4 The recent fallen branches can be seen in both P-2 and P-3, above. This tree apparently shed those 6- to 8-inch diameter limbs not due to decay but more likely on account of a combination of structurally weak attachments (crotches, unions) and accumulated foliage branch endweight growth. Line clearance tree workers (usually) only make cuts to clear high voltage lines, never to promote better tree structure or endweight reductions. 2.5 There is currently an informal shed or lanai, apparently on a simple looking concrete slab pad, near this cedar(partially) in the area planned for the new pool house. 2.6 If this tree were to be preserved, then several points need to be considered, including but not limited to the following: ongoing maintenance pruning requirements must be met to avoid problems like called out above in section 2.4 or more future breakage can be expected. Planning must be done to design a foundation that only minimally disrupts this cedar's root system. A couple of ideas to consider might include: o Poured on top of existing grade might be possible, with no excavation into the root zone soil, and with a layer of biaxial or triaxial geogrid (Tensar� BX- 1200, or equaUbetter) to avoid the usual compaction. o Pier and grade beam might be useful if the grade beam is not cut into the soil. A grade beam is typically cut into grade 12-18". When placed on top of grade a better formally defined term for it may be a "lintel". o Piling? Most piles look like piers to me. Some piles are called helical piers— twisted into the soil. o Any system used requires installation planning to preserve both the uncompacted original root zone AND the foliage crown overhead—no equipment travel over unbuffered root zone—no 30-foot tall derrick. I have occasionally seen "breakdown drill rigs" that some contractors hand- carried onto the site in pieces and assembled to drilUauger holes. Any of that of course requires additional costs probably beyond what was originally budgeted for. Although Atlas cedars can look stunningly pleasing in the right setting, this one is not aesthetically comparable to a"normal" cedar. Line clearance stubbing is not good for such trees, arboriculturally. Removal and replacement with a better structured specimen, with a better chance of a longer life would make better sense to most observers—and that is my recommendation. Dec. 12, 2016 Cedar status report: 22106 Linda Vista PI., Cupertino, CA. Page#3 of 7. � Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664 3.0 Conclusions & Recommendations 3.1 Conclusion: With all those stresses/problems pointed out above in my notes, discussion, and photos, I predict from my experience that this Atlas cedar tree will continue to be and aesthetics problem and increasing maintenance challenge. If left undisturbed by not having project improvements come within 25-feet of the trunk, the problems would still continue and it would probably be removed for those reasons within two to five years. If development has impacts near the cedar as planned but the owner/project goes to great lengths to preserve it (as discussed above), it will still likely be removed due to structural problems/breakage and aesthetic/decline worries in less than five years. 3.2 Recommendation: I recommend that the removal permit be granted by the City of Cupertino for this Atlas cedar tree under the high voltage lines. Replanting with one similar#15 or bigger large-maturing tree would be appropriate. Species suggestions are listed below—they are on the lists at www.selectree.or� (http://selectree.calpol_ .�). At the top of my preferences I would list the red-flowering horsechestnut (Aesculus x carnea) and Japanese pagoda tree (Sophora japonica). Aesculus X carnea RED HORSECHESTNUT Cedr�us atlantica 'Glauca Pendula' WEEPING BLUE ATLAS CEDAR Cotoneaster salicifolius WILLOWLEAF COTONEASTER Cratae�us 'Autumn Glory' AUTUMN GLORY HAWTHORN Cotoneaste�salicifolius WILLOWLEAF COTONEASTER Eucalvptus caesia BLUE-GRAY EUCALYPTUS Eucalxptus forrestiana FUCHSIA EUCALYPTUS Ilex vomitoria 'Pendula' WEEPING YAUPON HOLLY Malus X purpurea 'Ele ��i' ELEY CRABAPPLE Parkinsonia�raecox SONORAN PALO VERDE Sophora �aponica 'Pendula' WEEPING JAPANESE PAGODA TREE Vitex agnus-castus 'Alba' ALBA CHASTE TREE, ALBA VITEX Photinia serrulata 'Nova' NOVA CHINESE PHOTINIA 4.0 Selected References ANSI. 2001. American National Standard for Tree Care Operations -- Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance -- Standard Practices (Pruning) [a.k.a.: ANSI A300 (Part 1)-2001 (Pruning)] American National Standards Institute, Inc., 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. Telephone: 212.642.4900. [http://www.ansi.org] Coder, Dr. Kim D. 1996 "Tree Risk Management and Hazard Assessment: A General Overview" University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Forest Resources Unit. Publication FOR96- 33. Also available on the Internet at: http://www.forestry.uga.edu/docs/for96-33.html (last accessed 2/23/04) Dec. 12, 2016 Cedar status report: 22106 Linda Vista PI., Cupertino, CA. Page#4 of 7. � Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664 Dockter, Dave. 2001. "City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual -- Standards and Specifications" City of Palo Alto, Department of Planning and Community Development, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.329.2441 [http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/trees] Dunster, Julian A. 2009. Tre Risk Assessment in Urban Areas and the Urban/Rural Interface: Course Manual. Silverton, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. June 1993. How to Recognize and Prevent Hazard Trees. Fact Sheet DH 102. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences. Gainesville, FL 32611. (Originally published by National Arbor Day Foundation.) Gilman, Edward F. and Sharon J. Lilly. 2002. Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture, P.O. Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217.355.9411 (www.isa- arbor.com) Harris, R.W. with James R. Clark and Nelda P. Matheny. 2004. Arboriculture:integrated management of landscape trees, shrubs and vines. (4�h edition) Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458. Hayes, Ed. 2001. Evaluating Trees for Defects, Second Edition. Safetrees.com, 532 22nd. Street NE, Rochester, MN 55906 Lonsdale, David. 2000. Hazards From Trees, A General Guide. Policy& Practice Division, Forestry Commission, 231 Corstorphine Road, Edinburgh, EH127AT United Kingdom. Matheny, Nelda P. and James R. Clark. 1994. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. (2nd ed.) International Society of Arboriculture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, IL 61874- 9902. Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer. 1994. The Body Language of Trees, A handbook for failure analysis. HMSO, London. Minnesota DNR, and USDA Forest Service. 1996. How to Recognize Hazardous Defects in Trees. USDA Forest Service NA-FR-01-96. 20 pp. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155-4044. URL: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/press/nfcpubs/hazards.txt. Pijut, Paula M. 2000 "Cedrus—The True Cedars" Journal of Arboriculture, 26(4): pp. 218-224. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2000/nc 2000 pijut 002.pdf Robbins, K. 1986. How to Recognize and Reduce Tree Hazards in recreation sites. USDA Forest Service. Northeast Area. NA-FR-31. Smiley, Thomas E. and Bruce R. Fraedrich and Neil Hendricksen. 2002. Tree Risk Management. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, NC 28278. Urban, James. 2008. Up By Roots, Healthy Soils and Trees in the Built Environment. International Society of Wagener, W. 1963. Judging hazard from native trees in California recreational area:A guide for professional foresters. Research Paper PSW-P1. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif. Wagener, W. 1963. Judging hazard from native trees in California recreational area:A guide for professional foresters. Research Paper PSW-P1. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, Calif. Dec. 12, 2016 Cedar status report: 22106 Linda Vista PI., Cupertino, CA. Page#5 of 7. � Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664 5.0 Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Assumptions & Limiting Conditions Accompanying All Reports by Ray Morneau A This assignment includes no plant material other than the trees specified in the contract or report assignment and reflects their conditions at the time of my inspection. B The scope requires no laboratory assessment of either the soil or plant tissue. The inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, other probing, coring or Resistograph`M testing. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the tree or property in question may not arise in the future. C This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event,nor upon any finding to be reported. D This report is specific to the identified client prepared for, as well as the unique identified site,this individual tree(s), and this particular situation. Although some of the principles herein discussed might appear to be applicable to another site,tree, or situation, it is not possible to effectively carry any of these ideas across to a different scenario. Uncategorically, further investigation of the different scene is required. E Due to the fact that trees are living organisms,the individual variability of each specimen in each situation renders guarantees and/or warranties for my services impracticable. However, following the codes of ethics endorsed by my peers and the professional organizations to which I belong, I offer my opinions relying on my best professional judgment and suggesting best management practices for my clients' trees. F If the circumstances surrounding this situation turn to a legal forum,then this report's consultant- author could be brought into legal testimony or court appearances only with a new assignment covered by additional consultant fees. G Alteration of this report, intentionally or unintentionally, voids the entire report. H Sketches,photographs, and any other graphics used in this report are intended solely as visual aids. Every attempt is made to limit distortions and to provide graphics realistic enough for the purposes of this report. Nevertheless, if engineering-accuracy is important to any user of this report, then professionals skilled in the particular discipline must be retained to provide that level of detail. I Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education,knowledge,training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and atteinpt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a speci�ed period. Likewise,remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment,planting,pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries,property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete Dec. 12, 2016 Cedar status report: 22106 Linda Vista PI., Cupertino, CA. Page#6 of 7. � Ray Morneau, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664 and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed,but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. 6.0 Certification & Use Statement I certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge, ability, and belief, and are made in good faith. The instant report is applicable to this cedar tree at 22106 Linda Vista Place and may not be adopted without site- /tree-specific updates/revisions/adaptations by this ISA Certified Arborist. Thank you for the opportunity to apply my knowledge and expertise worlcing with this tree. If I can answer any further questions for you, or anyone with concerns about your trees, please call or e-mail to inform me. Respectfully submitted, ��.;�� '�,r�'��' � Raymond J. Morneau ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A PNWISA Certified Tree Rislc Assessor#1188 Dec. 12, 2016 Cedar status report: 22106 Linda Vista PI., Cupertino, CA. Page#7 of 7.