No preview available
Tree Arborist report Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 Application Number(s) rborist Report Approval Body: Director/StaffEvaluation of a Blue Atlas Cedar Tree at: Approva I Date 02/02/21 1402 South Stelling Road, Cupertino, CA Signature Jeffrey Tsumura Case Manager 12/10/2019 Prepared for: Swamy Srikantappa 1402 S. Stelling Road Cupertino, CA 95014 Prepared by: Kurt Fouts ISA Certified Arborist WE-0681A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Kurt Fouts Arborlei C"BUItsnt 826 Manlereq Avenue Capitola, CA 951310 831-359-3607 k u rl I uutsl Cou I I uok.corn Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 Tahle of ('ontents SUMMn Numbers) ► .......................................................................................................... 1 Approva I Boly,-a'72/602/21 tffc(.Staff......................................................................................................... 1 Approva I Dat� . JIIg.IIIIICIII.................................................................................................................. 1 Signature Jeffrey Tsumura imis o E1n n§p0nmen .............................................................................................. 2 Purpose and use of the report...................................................................................... 2 Resources.................................................................................................................... 2 OBSERVATIONS..............................................................................................3-11 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................12-13 Mitigation Cons iderations Tree Replacement RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................14 Attachments: Appendix A-D Appendix A - Tree Location Map Appendix B - Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Appendix C - Glossary of Terms Appendix D - Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Co rfivauptilrycDeviBl krs(Pt.ti)epartment 12/10/2019 1 qq2 S. $telli Road Page 1 lanningrdivision — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 y �ti n Approval Body: Director/Staff Approval DaY@ corto�iop/_pj a mature Blue Atlas cedar tree was evaluated on a residential property. Signature Tk STfiVrA H ho I+h ,,+ halias �+ Gn ed many large branches recently and in the past year. The amounrta6TYr06ily failed limbs far exceeds a `normal' condition of occasional limb failure and there are existing limbs with defects indicating a likelihood of failure in the near future. The size of the limbs with the potential to fail, are large enough to cause significant damage to multiple targets and a car in the driveway was damaged from a recent limb failure. Mitigation methods to reduce the risk of future failures will not sufficiently improve its condition. The tree is classified as a `specimen' tree by the City of Cupertino, it meets the City's criteria for removal of a "protected tree", and I recommend it's removal. The reasons for this recommendation are discussed in more detail below. Background Mr. Swamy Srikantappa contacted me to inspect an atlas cedar tree in his front yard located at 1402 South Stelling Road. Further, to evaluate the trees health and structure and recommend management options. Since the tree has suffered numerous branch failures in the recent past, and there are multiple targets, Mr. Srikantappa was concerned about the safety of the tree. On December 9th I met with the Mr. Srikantappa, and we reviewed the current site conditions, past management history of the trees, and previous failures of this tree. Assignment ■ Perform a Level Two Tree Risk Assessment as defined by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), A300, Tree Risk Assessment Standard a. Tree Failure - (Part 9), 2017. ■ Assessment to entail a visual inspection of the tree and site conditions from the ground and using a sounding mallet and binoculars only. Corfiva ptilryclDeV1Dl krs department 12/10/2019 1 qq2 S. $telli Rpad Page 2 lanningbivision — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 Limits P6hK8'Xs06nment Approval Body: Director/Staff Approval DAR8 infcEFM824Mcontained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those Items at the time of inspection on December 9', 2019. Signature Jeffrey Tsumura The inspecfildh f( Wed to visual examination of accessible items without climbing, dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the trees in question, do not include items not present or visible at the time of this inspection. Any tree, whether it has a visible weakness or not, will fail if the forces applied exceed the strength of the tree or its parts. An estimation of failure in this report is not to be construed as an absolute prediction. Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to inform the property owner about the likelihood of a tree or its parts to fail. The report is to be used as an aid in decision making in the management of the tree. Resources All information within this report is based on the following: ■ Site Visit, Tree & Site Conditions Evaluation at, 1402 South Stelling Road, San Jose. ■ Verbal information provided by Mr. Srikantappa regarding previous failure history and past management of tree. ■ City of Cupertino Municipal Code, Chapter 14.18 Protected Trees & Section 14.18.110 Application &Approval Authority for Tree Removal Permit. Corfiva ptilryc1DeV1Dl krs department 12/10/2019 1 qq2 S. $telli Rpad Page 3 lanningbivlslon — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# nRSFRTft4Qf1�07 Application Number(s) � Approva I BA lue atlas cedar ( drus atlantica `Glauca') classified as a `specimen' tree by the City of �8P� 65wc�� g in the front yard of a residential property was inspected (Image #1). Approva I Date 02/02/21 Signature T, ,� rP T�m�,&,-- f._A, Tr C� TCTC7SVri C� Case Manager Trunk Diameter: 39 inches DBH (At 56 inches above grade) above grade. Height: 80 Feet Canopy Spread: 50 Feet r Image#1-Tree T1 —Blue Atlas Cedar Community Development Department E I tiox� of Bl u Atl tls C r 12/10/2019 1 ' 1, IX - � pertino Page CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 The matureacedar aprpears in good health with needle density and color normal for the species. ApprovaI 13YOff15iRgR8rvft3 r needle bundle growth of 6-12 inches. The tree is planted in a small growln �,�ative to Its size, about 8 feet from the home and root diameter expansion has Approval D8A eu e suFreanding the o raise Ima e #2 . Signature `- 1 4 r Image#2—Note raised soil, limited rooting area and close proximity to home. The trunk appears well rooted. There is a small cavity (< 6"), and area of decay in the trunk, at 8 feet above grade on the western side. F. ,: +.� _'•. .- ,n,fpt►,h.'_ 41 Ar AN A4. MI J r'P ♦ ; � r � • ewe"_ ? rPlAwma w, M �. r fir, Community Development Department �� .•• •- • • • .•- - CUPERTINO A. ■ . • 00 One 8- in& diameter 6anch overhanging the driveway at 35' above grade has split and Approval BMqQiM6�Wpjg�ipAe tree supported by a lower limb (Image #4). Signature -_ �`= -.. a• .S-.'�- �i-� ._ram' ...r r r+ i-_ r i_= ti ... Image#4-Eight-inch diameter limb torn and still attached, over driveway area. x ��:_ •� '-r ""'ram • � `t" r � +"*'. :'•) a Z - � S �1- � • • • : Y • •gyp „ i � 3J •��- ••• • • •. • • .•- �A r ► `-��� .I Tom' � I .. �/ r J ���•+� . �+y , ,�, \=%� �' '�_�� _ � �/� ��� ,. fir• � y�! �« :! Ir '. i .-t�af X� mitt���� �•4 � �� !. r 4R .. -� �: -- a t` �E. 4 !r• + - Wk.A • - �.-• �t',Y. � � 1,�, ice.-. l�-, 11 i �•: •�rite, � _'p�T - b , -. _ ��` 1 ,_ -" :t.� �� - "-� _i°° _ � , I`ll � '�-f_ - �'��♦ �;. ��� • � uxlfir • a •.1i - •. - 1 1 � • • • ,f,1f.F' � � � .1tfi�`�". �e>�i�i�,t if - r t.' x .i,,, ..�- �i. � e � ',:i _ _ - -•�;:�� ~ � "'� �_°��`•.t� .r ��L�''�jj^`, !' ,. •ti_t� 1 '�`'fi < Zc,sr f�. t - � i ire .i�•�•k':r . F.�• . �•, �S� .� �^ yam'���� _ `� -4r 4��'" •` � b��� F� { t;r ?�'�� ..'. � s • ,. r,. ,F s, - -;_ ••�� ���- may, '- .ell . -:1 AA ik— {S•` -ali• Y�\�■- �•f - ram- ,. i�f� �� r• •.� � ;� l., Ya �� lb vx- ems: 'Ijw � -' �a'r�.ak. I�,�"-.n 1{ • �• � •:�•r y,� '�.�` � •� •+/fir �t'. AR • - : • 1 ,•• - • ,•- •-,8 ••• 0 •- 0 0 0 0 0 Community Development Department E��!!,,�aluatiop of DIje Atlas CAdar 12/10/2019 1X@@.W8rYiMb-d,4n — Cupertino Page 11 CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 Application Number(s) Approval Body: Director/Staff Approva I Date 02/02/21 A shallow surface root growing adjacent to the home has caused the plaster on the outside wall Signature �n�1 ff �T�M m _ate;' _� ge#9). The sidewalk adjacent to the tree is lifted. Case Manager o L� 1 � , r. �.,.. a= n H F r Image#9—Shallow root(circled)and cracked plaster siding and driveway(arrows). Corfiva ptilrycIDeV1Dl krs i)epartment 12/10/2019 1 qq2 S. $telli Rpad Page 12 lanningbivision — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# DjSCUSZMfq07 Application Number(s) For reasons not entirely apparent, this mature cedar is showing a pattern of limb drop over the Approval BRJM:R4iegf%l6&ifthat at least one of the limb failures described is due to an over extended Approval Dl corQMWJIl xcessive end weight. Since this tree does not show evidence of regular pruning g Signature s I�ag to r pn p th, occasional failure due to overextended limbs for this species is not uncommon, 5 qy,q,[, the high amoun of failures over an extended duration of time seems to point to a more systemic problem. One limb in the upper canopy shows decay, response growth (callus), and cracking along the limb. When viewed with binoculars, some limbs in the upper canopy are a darkened color indicating possible decay. Because of the large number of failures within the past year, it would be prudent to expect more limb failures from those limbs observed with possible decay along the limb. The limb diameter, fall distance and number of targets, including the home, cars in the driveway, pedestrians on sidewalk and parked cars along S. Stelling Road are all potential targets. One branch failure that occurred in the past month caused damage to one of the parked cars in the driveway (Image #10). The limited growing space in relation to the tree size and its close location to the home have also created problems. The rooting area is inadequate. Surface rooting has caused damage to the home exterior and shallow roots have caused sidewalk lifting. Both problems are a result of root diameter expansion. The damage caused to the home and sidewalk will continue to be an issue that will necessitate ongoing maintenance such as root pruning and will increase in frequency over time. -a; :..�.y... Image#10—Ten-inch diameter limb on car in driveway. Community Development Department &URP64PW;imrAs—&*Nertino 12/10/2019 CUPERTINO 1402 S. StellirAFFpIRbVED Page 13 Case# TR-2020-007 Application Number(s) Approval Body: Director/Staff Approval DD�SCUFOON Continued: Signature hrnnnk fnih iroc d potential targets, a Level Two - Basic Tree Risk Assess me nY WNY'rgIrtormed. Results of this industry standardized evaluation methodology yielded a risk rating of High. The risk rating levels include low, medium, high and extreme. The "high" risk rating for this tree is based primarily on the probability of future limb failures, combined with the likelihood of impact to the home or cars in the driveway, and the consequences of failure. A copy of the field form for this assessment is included in Appendix B. In my opinion there is a high probability of additional limb failures within the next year, and for the reasons discussed above, I am recommending the removal of this tree. Trees with a high-risk rating should be mitigated as soon as is practical. Mitigation Considerations Crown reduction pruning is the best mitigation method to minimize branch failure due to over extended limbs. Typically, a canopy is reduced by 10-25 percent in order to reduce the mechanical stress on over extended limbs. If this method is employed, the risk could be reduced to some limbs. However overextended limbs appear to be only one cause for limb failure and even with reduction pruning, some level of risk will remain. The degree of pruning required to significantly reduce limb failure risk would, in my opinion, irreparably alter the branch architecture of the tree, negatively impact its health and enhance the potential for future failures. Tree Replacement If tree removal is authorized, a replacement tree will be required. The City of Cupertino requires replacement trees for trees removed. According to their ordinance one 36-inch box tree will be required as a replacement. I recommend replanting a small to medium size tree in the front yard as a replacement. The tree should be planted a minimum 10 feet from the home as indicated on the attached site plan. Recommended species to replant include: ■ Marina Madrone (Arbutus `Marina') • Majestic Beauty Olive (Olea europaea `Majestic Beauty') ■ Purple Leaf Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis `Forest Pansy') ■ Ginko (Ginko biloba) ■ Crape Myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) Corfvau,ptilqclDeV1Bl krs department 12/10/2019 1 qq2 S. $telli Rpad Page 14 lanningbivlslon — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 Application Number(s) Approval B5QC(B II"�t`tlt N ION S A rova I Date R/tU pp � min a I nor-oecar%i normi+e nrinr to removal of the tree. Signature Zffr� La5 possible, remove the tree and grind the stump to a minimum of 6 inches. 3. Froin4heampornmended species, replant a 36- inch box tree in the location indicated on the Tree Location Map. Respectfully submitted, Kurt Fouts `.rbarlet Canaui�eust kw� Tvu�f 826 Monlierey Avenue Kurt Fouts - ISA Certified Arborist WE0681A Capitals, 95a1t} $31-359-3607 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification kurlluuts10vu11uok.c;arn Community Development Department Planning Division — Cuin Location Map CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2020-00H02 South Stelling Road, Cupertino Application Number(s) Approval BodyDirector/ Statt Approva I Date 02/02/21 Signature J�ffrey Tsumura Case Manager Xe=ence Driveway REPLACEMENT T0<TREE V BLUE ATLAS CEDAR LOCATION DBH 48" Sidewalk South Stelling Road Hurt Fouts K.F. Arbortet Consultant No Scale Capitola,Iere CA 95D10 Avenue 12/10/2019 831-359-3607 k u r11 u utsl tau 11 oak.cu rn ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Fob rm Client Cate I-LA/f��' t Time i 1 .30 r �rii � RL Tree no. 1 Sheet�_of�,r e species cl h Hei ht ) Crown spread dia. �i essor(s) l g I — Cu ertlno Tools used �AiA Time frame C U PERTINO APPROVED Target Assessment Ca s TR-2020-007 Target Zone Occupancy is Application Number(s) t ste ° LO o n e Target description Target protection _ ; _ >-rare ;, 5 x 2—occasional Ap 4 al Body: Director/Staff9� �X 1� 3—frequent � o 4—constant rl r= dE ri Apr V Lvwr1 C 1M ( i�( Sig 4 FAKKfn C 4 JN D 1 Site Factors History of failures Z L I h6l, FA iphy Flat(Slope❑ % Aspect Site changes NoneU Grade change❑ Site clearing❑ Changed soil hydrology❑ hoot cuts❑ Describe Soil conditions Limited volume`®Saturated❑ Shallow Compacted 0 Pavement over roots❑ % Describe Prevailing wind direction NM Common weather Strong windsr Ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain❑ Describe :5� L, Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low❑ Normal Ea High❑ , age None(seasonal)❑ None(dead�l Normal P) % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests/Biotic .h _ _Ablotic Species failure profile BranchesM Trunk❑ Roots❑ Describe 0 Load Factors Windexposure Protected❑ Partial❑ Fu4O Windfunneiing❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ LargeQ Crowndensity Sparse❑ Normal® Dense❑ Interior branches Few❑ Normalp Dense[] Vines/Mistletoe/!Noss❑ Recent or expected change in load factors AJ.O rF' Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure �f —Crown and Branches-- Unbalanced crown❑ LCR !-5 % " Cracks E] Lightning damage❑ Dead twigs/branches,Q %overall Max.dia. , Codominant 0 pT 4�fgl"VVr'_ 6M19b Included bark❑ Broken/Hangers Number_ Max.dia. 10 _ Weak attachments C] _ CCaviftv/CNest hole%circ. fiver-extended branches 9 Previous branch failures 0 b NOSi�ilblr branches present 1d Pruning history Crown cleaned El Thinned ❑ Raised ;W Dead/Missing bark❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Reduced ❑ Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks❑ Heartwood decay❑ Flush cuts ❑ her Response growth VVIcTL 15 � Condition(s)of concern 60 AA1510 bl!d e i-q W l__f11A W 16 X =may L7 &Iyt� F I& Part Size 10 Fall Distance Part Size -�i" Fall Distance 5n 6 Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderated Significant❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible hl Probable ❑ Imminent❑ likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable`6 Imminent❑ --Trunk— ---Roots and Root Collar— rDea'd/Missing,, bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible❑ Depth Stem girdling❑ dominant tems ❑ included bark❑ Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ pood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze❑ ooze ❑ Cavity❑ %circ. Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay[] Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper❑ Root plate lifting❑ Soil weakness❑ Lean a Corrected? Response growth Response growth Condition(s)of concernCondition(s)of concern Part Size Fall Distance Part Size Fall Distance Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑ Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible CI Probable ❑ Imminent❑ Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable ❑ Imminent❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization Likelihood Community Development Department Failure Impact Failure&impact Consequences Target ((rGm hTotrfxTJ (Target Condition(s) 'Pfgfl n i D WM — C ipertineconcern a m ? d c Risk or description) E d i4 rating CUPER INO APPROVED a w = E z 3 d m 8 : z `- 'r- ? rnom Cas — CL ? 2 7 3 Z in Ma[rfx2J np� �( I l i A licatipnft�ur ber(s) '7 C..tL ii j... 1~ J Ap ��I1� ;lr cF or/Staff 14r 4 i.� I itrf' �eft.re TsurpLyr a, 1jk Case Manager [XI Matrix1.Likelihood matrix. Likelihood Likelihood of Impact of Failure Very low Low Medium High Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely unlikely unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrix 2.Risk rating matrix. Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure&Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely I Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely I Low Low Low Low Notes,explanations,descriptions L M w6 Lj 1 °t LJ Lit A .r 7- ` 1 I o La K �L1 > A l v F -� i� Mitigation options z. C(L)in:21i &621&)1)Ty PP--uW I n' Residual risk 2. 0 E. Residual risk' ol\ 3. Residual risk a. Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low❑ Moderate❑ High'Q Extreme 13 Overall residual risk None❑ Low❑ Moderated High❑ Extreme© Recommended inspection interval Data p Final ❑Preliminary Advanced assessment needed❑No❑Yes-Type/Reason „•_ Inspection limitations j2None ©Visibility []Access [Wines Moot collar buried Describe 'this datasheet was produced by the International Society of Arboriculture(ISA)—2017 Page 2 of 2 C o nq rr gQ,y „pU CupCrtfannin inloI nt CUPERTINO g APPROVED Case# TR-2020-007 Basal lower trunk, trunk flare, or buttress roots. Approval BCdI0kar(LQt1�Mii&&eased area on stems, roots and branches. Often sunken and discolored. Approva I Date 02/02/21 Critical Root zone (GRz): Area of soil around a tree where a minimum number of roots Signature ���� � � + �t4irAlstability or health of the tree are located. CRZ determination is sometim&9b%Wd'6n the drip line or a multiple of the DBH, but because root growth can be asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation may be required. Codominant branches/stems: Forked branches (or trunks), nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union, may have included bark. Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all branches and foliage. Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measurement of trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above grade. Frass: Fecal material and/or wood shavings produced by insects. Included Bark Attachments (crotches): Branch/limb or limb /trunk, or codominant trunks originating at acute angles from each other. Bark remains between such crotches, preventing the development of axillary wood. The inherent weakness of such attachments increases with time, through the pressure of opposing growth and increasing weight of wood and foliage, often resulting in failure. Live Crown Ratio (LCR): Ratio of the height of the crown containing live foliage to overall height of the tree. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that form the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Suppressed: Trees that have been overtopped and occupy an understory position within a group or grove of trees. Suppressed trees often have poor structure. Tree Protection Zones (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited of restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Trunk flare: Transition zone from trunk to roots where the trunk expands into the buttress or structural roots. This Glossary of Terms was adapted from the Glossary ofArboricultural Terms (ISA, 2015) Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupe&,I_hWMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS 'CUPERTIN4 1. Any AFsPaF9EVsEi4btion provided by the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No Case # rTRe202i"07ssumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as the quality A-�pki i6itkbmber(s) 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information Approval Body: D�WIWAk ers. Approval Date3. Qoliser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of Signature Jeffrehisrs� uaa al unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an a I )aye an j O services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches. Diagrams. Graphs. Photos. Etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING 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 attempt to reduce 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. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. 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 all trees. Kurt FouW 826 Mani-arey AveRue Dapitola, CA 95a10 831-359-3607 k u rl I outsl Cou I I aok.co rn TM