The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - November 6, 2019 Public Commentr-:t) projects throughout the community; make it a five-year community-wide event to collect a larger pot of funding. Betty Wilson, member of the public, presented a letter (filed) from a certified arborist who provided an assessment on her neighbor's redwood trees that she feels are in danger of damaging her property. She stated his report shows severe root damage and a high likelihood of the trees falling. The arborist further rated her neighbor's trees a 10 out of 12 risk of falling. She once again requested the City direct Code Enforcement to take this from a private matter to a public matter and ensure the high-risk trees are addressed. Mr. Schwabauer stated staff will review the report and respond appropriately. City Attorney Magdich added there are competing reports; the trees are on private property; and staff will need to review the report submitted by Ms. Wilson. Mushtaq Tahirkheli announced he is running for Assemblymember in District 9 and needs 1,000 signatures. He requested citizens sign his petition in order to get his name on the ballot. E. Comments bv the Citv Council Members on Non-Aqenda ltems Council Member Johnson commented on the tragic incident earlier this week when one of Lodi's police officers was ambushed, stating incidents like this have happened in other communities, but not in Lodi. He expressed gratitude that the officer was well-trained in handling the situation and was unharmed, adding he hopes this does not happen again in Lodi. He further stated he attended the Mayor's State of the City Address, at which the Mayor articulated very clearly where the City stands and where he envisions the City going. Lodi does have financial concerns; however, the growth horizon has many positives if they all materialize. Council Member Mounce reported that she attended the City Selection Committee meeting last week to vote on a representative to serve on the San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG) At the meeting, she posed a number of questions relating to federal funding that is going to SJCOG to plan for affordable housing. She stated she believes this funding is not being well spent through SJCOG and it should, instead, go to cities. Lastly, she attended the League of California Cities annual conference and general business meeting in Long Beach. Council Member Nakanishi stated he has received complaints about the Tiny Homes project that it only houses five homeless residents for such a high cost and that it could have been accomplished for less. His explained that the money for this project came from grant funds that could only be spent on permanent housing for the homeless. Cities, including Lodi, do not have specific funding to address homelessness. Many stakeholders, through the Continuum of Care (CoC), vetted this project and determined it was the best direction for Lodi instead of a standard tent city, which is an expensive project that requires an investment in land, infrastructure, food services, and security, and has a high rate of recidivism. A tent city pro¡ect would not solve the problem of creating permanent housing. These grant funds are for the purpose of reducing homelessness and providing on-going operations. He encouraged the public to become involved in the Homeless Committee and CoC meetings to provide feedback while the issues and projects are being discussed and vetted. With regard to the grant funding for the Tiny Homes project, Mayor Pro Tempore Kuehne stressed that the money also goes toward operations and maintenance of the project, not just construction. He reported that the CoC meeting last week in Lodi had over 120 in attendance, which is one of the most well-attended meetings to date. He announced the CoC has a dashboard that shows how many homeless there are in the county by demographics and what the housing needs are, along with dollar amounts associated with each. He stated he believes that providing services is more important that solely housing; however, State legislators came up with the "housing first" model, which is how the grant funding came about. He explained what a low- or no-barrier housing project is (i.e. no services associated with the project) and why the Tiny Homes project is more appropriate for Lodi because every resident staying in one of the homes must first go through a program to become clean and sober and show they are moving out of homelessness. He reported he went to the LOEL Center's fundraiser, "Lobster Mania," which had 7 Æffiffitrtr$sr# É hcL b.1 6. ul' [.san rr¡ rl ASæü ^MERr'c^N so ct.¡'Ty:ct CONSULTING /tRÊORISTS 6ì ISÍI CLR'TIFTF,ì) .¡\RUORISl' Date: November 4,2019 Ms. Betty Wilson 1010 W, Tokay St. Lodi, CA 95240 Re: Tree risk assessment on two Redwood trees. To whom it may concern, This letter is in regards to a request to determine the overall risk of two redwood trees located at 700 S. Fairmont St. in Lodi, CA. For this report my findings are based only on visual observations. On October 29,2019,1 met with Ms. Betty Wilson at her home located at 1010 W. Tokay St. in Lodi. As I approached her house I noticed the two large Redwood trees next door, both of which stood less than 100 feet from her home. She expressed her concerns of either of the trees falling onto her home. The tree she was most concerned about stood about 40 feet away. On November 3, 20191revisited the site to conduct my risk assessment, here is what I found. Both trees stood on the eastern side of the property located at 700 S. Fairmont St. Both trees had concrete surrounding three sides of either tree and within the critical root zones, ( less than 10 feet from the trunks of either tree). Critical root zones for these trees should extend beyond 50 feet. Both trees exhibited a healthy appearance based on growth, foliage color and density. Both trees were in an area of grass, and well irrigated. I will name the two trees for this report ás the northern and southern tree. The northern tree is on the eastern side of the property closest to Tokay St. and the southern tree is on the eastern side along the southern fence line near the church parking lot. The northern tree has a DBH (diameter at breast height) of 61 inches, and Ætrå$ffiffiF$F#ISfI ARB(}RIS'I CFRl IF If. ASGáI,ÄM.ER.r:CÀñ SÔCt.EilY o/ G.o.NSU,LTI NG, ÂRB'ORIST.S stands approximately 105 feet tall. The southern tree has a DBH of 51 inches and stands approximately 95 feet tall. The northern tree has two codominant stems starting at approximately 40 feet up with included bark. The term "codominant stems" is used to describe two or more main stems (or "leaders") that are about the same diameter and emerge from the same location on the main trunk. As the tree grows older, the stems remain similar in size without any single one becoming dominant. Codominant stems are one form of poor architecture and weak branch unions. Codominant stems tend to fail much more often than others, especially in storms. Both trees had several burls develop on the trunk and root systems. Both trees showed significant signs of decay at the base of the trunks and throughout several surface roots; ants infested many of those areas of decay. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A burl results from a tree undergoing some form of stress. lt may be caused by an injury, virus or fungus. Most burls grow beneath the ground, attached to the roots as a type of malignancy that is generally not discovered until the tree dies or falls over. Such burls sometimes appear as groups of bulbous protrusions connected by a system of rope-like roots. Almost all burl wood is covered by bark, even if it is underground. lnsect infestation and certain types of mold infestation are the most common causes of this condition. I have included with this report an ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form in which it develops a ratíng to classiff the trees overall risk. Both of these trees share such close similarities that I rated them together, either way both would be classified as High Risk trees. ln addition to the cunent standards I will also include the previous formula in which it takes into account size, potentialtarget, and likelihood of failure on a scale of 1 (low risk) -12 (high risk). This formula would would suggest the trees would be rated at a 10 out of 12. Throughout this report we find many connecting factors such as ants, decay, abnormal growth, and severe root damage caused by the surrounding concrete. I believe that because of the surrounding construction, which resulted in extensive root damage, as well the the concrete over the root system now, that this has led to a fungal infection that has developed significant amounts of decay throughout the root system and potentially throughout the trunk of both trees. ÆffitrtrffifsF#ISA CERl II.II-D ARI](IRIS f 6tsûEI,4.ME(rCA.ñ sôÕ.tÊTY,oJ C'o DISU]:'TING. Á RB O RI STS tt: My conclusíon to this report will be to provide different options in reducing overall risk based on the factors above. With a compromised foundation to both trees, at a minimum, thinning the canopy to both trees would decrease the wind load they would experience; the ability to have the wind push against instead of through. Thus creating less force applied to their foundations. However, weighing in the risks associated with both of these massive trees and the likelihood of them uprooting and striking a home or office with such severe consequences, due to the compromised root system failing; removal is the safest option. Unfortunately the damage had already been done to these trees and is irreversible, proper planning and foresight would have changed this outcome. Please feelfree to contact me anytime at209-747-6134 with any questions you may have Best regards, Justin Widgren Owner @ NorcalArborists ISA Certified Arborist. W812067A ISA Qualified Risk Assessor ASCA Member and Consulting Graduate Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form€rñ t¡Date t Client Address/Tree location Tree species Assessor(sI no- Tools Log Ë t o T9F Targetdescription Target protection s5E¡€ åE'g s Ê., 'IE5g -g r5- ã,ãPJ-ôts Occl¡pancy rate 1-râfe 2 - ocras¡onal 3 -frequpnl 4 -coníänt 9S 8sEiúq> !DOèË ôÈ..8ãqo EË7¡30ñg.K u t{J2 Ãfó¡?C K z Ã]ü3iajÃ)rlLI4 iteFacto'r History offailures Sitechanges Soil conditions Limited volumeE Preuailing wind direA¡on år-!. Topography Site ctearingE Changed soil hydrologyEl RootcurslJ Saturated [J Shallow [J Compacted [1- pavemÊnt over roots Ebsee6 - - % Aspect c,ommon u¡eather StrongwindsEl lceEl SnowE Heavy rainE Vigor towEl Normdft Hightr Foliage None{seasonal}El None{dead}E Normal % Chlorotic_% Necrotíc o/o Abiotic ipecies failure profile BranchesE TrunkE Rootslf wind,orposure protectedE partialE ¡ulltr $rind funnelingE Rehtive cmwnsize Srnalltr MediumE Largeþ(Crown,density SparseEl NormalE Densdff lntedorbranches FewE tUonnañ ÐenseE Vines/Mistletoe/Moss EIlecent or e!çectéd change in load Ëctors - Grown and Bnnches- Unbalancedcrorvn E LCR % Dead twþ/brianchesE loovemllBrohn/Hancen Number_ Over-extended bnnches f J Frunfuglrlsßory Cmwn cìeaned EReduced ErFlushcuts EI Max,dia---Max.dia-_ Thinned fI Rã¡sed ETopped E Hon-tailed tf Other Fall Distance Ðead/Missingbark fl Canþrs/GalfsÆurk tr Saplrood dama eeldec;rtt ü cpnks E Responsegrowth decay trl {s}of ti Part Size {l-ått Èoadondefect N/AA Minor E Moder¿teb SigniñcanrE l¡kel¡hoodsff¿¡lule hprobãbletf possiileE"Fobable E tmminent E Part Size - Fall Distance ---Loadondefect NlAg Minor E Moderdetf, SignfñcantE Ukd¡ltoodoffailure tmprobabletr Fosç¡bhtr probabte tf Immtnent E -Trunk-Dead/Missingbark¿E- Abnormal barktexture/color{ Codorninantsferns [f Included bark E Cr,:acks fl sapwooddamage/decayE Cankers/Galls/Bu¡#, sapoozeEl LightningdamageE Heartwooddecay[3 Conks/Mushroom$ cavifyy'f\le*hole_%circ Þepth_ poortapertl Lean ' Conected? Responsegrowth Condttion{s}of Þrt Size Fall Distance loadondefect N/Atr Minor El tvloderate'd SþiËcantu tÍlelihoodoffailue tmprobableF possibt:R probable Et tmminent tf -fteeþ and RootCollar* Oollar buriedlNotvisible E Depth_ Stemgirdling [J Ðead El DecayËl' ooze-EP Cracks[J Cr¡tlDamaged."tåû Loadondeúect NIAE! Minor Ef ModeraæE SîcnficahÈd t¡kelihoodıffa'ilure rmprobabreEl possibrelif probabrê E l*miirent E cl{-Part Size tallDistance Roorplate lifringE¡Soil weakness E Responsegrowth Condition {s} of ûoncern ¿-l*l- conk/Mushrooms E f-avrVEl %drc. Distanceftorntrunf Ç lC] \ Risk fategorization likellhood ConseguencesFailure&lmpact ffmmlûÛ¡b<il¡mpactFailure at Eã Ë6g¡tgÐ Ul û o úút Rlsk rating (from vwrf,(4 og .J os o {'5üEüû¿,z ..cE À É¡I Ê #o.G È @ Ê,o.tt=oJ E .E.E{¡ E g IttÞ.oo o- Éd,Ê .È E -gItl!åo A E o l¡ø q ô- C-onditlon(s) ofconcemTree pãrt ¿ÐrJÀi.¡ç?<74 {L<LJXXx {t-s^)X(X 6tg¿¡¿-Ð{të"Ê-r' lslz,hfi¿,1þ{E!* Fft tLuùr'" &,vJ,2+ú tL|4$Ðt IdrK KX)¿d xxx rila€â#> ù¡þtP*r> ÐÐ¡ì- fô wfY þJWú- ffis{ Y,k fit4XKtlftlàfiKY¿/6.{XX5{Tïrffi**tñ\\Õ'l ftÉ{' J?n6 ,* I ?r TargÊt ffdrget. humber ordæcrþãon] U3 ú) s Mavxl.Ukdihood matríx /}'lsükZ R¡sk rating matrir I L a \ , g ffi>twr> T-tL{€b b3û ç4r#¡tút4'\- descriptions \\.t'I¿.'5l \\t !,þ]dliettü Residual ,*k@MÍtigation oPtions t ., 1 Residual r¡st *j*rJd Residual risk - Residual risk -_ .A tikellhood of lmPact Low rikelihood af Sornewhat Llkelihood of Failure & lmPact Consequencesof hilure Negl¡s¡ble Minor Slgniñcar*Sèvere Veryliliely Low Moderate Hlch Extreme likelv Low Moderate Hieh Hieh Somenrhat likelY Low Low Moderate Moderate Unlikely Low Low Low Low 4. Ouerall tree risk rating Low E Overallresidual risk None EI LowE Moderate E ttigËÊ rxtreme tr ¡r¡odentå$- HichE Éttreme[J Recommendedinspectioninterual-- needed fINo EYes-TYPe/Reason ElVines ERoot collar buried Describe oata 'tçinal E Preliminary Advanced assessment lnspection timitationlúNone ElVisibility ElAccess .- - -r ı-r-!- -c À-r^i-,râ,. t¡SÀl - ?.lll7 Page 2 of2