20201120-003c: Patrick Fulker appeal presentation — original pdf

Backup

Appeal Regarding the Urban Forester’s decision on two Cottonwood trees 42” and 20” Trees Located in the Right of Way on Crown Ct, Austin TX INTENDED PURPOSE OF APPEAL: • To communicate and demonstrate the serious issues that these trees cause to the City and property owners of Crown Ct. • To demonstrate that removal of these trees is necessary and warranted. • To elicit change to the “processes and procedures” employed by the Urban Forester regarding removal of Public Trees. • Property owners have no rights under the current rules. SUBJECT TREES & LOCATION – Crown Ct, Austin TX A/C Unit 34” 20” 42” >19” 4 Large Cottonwood Trees – All 4 are female trees that produce “Cotton Fuzz” A/C Unit 34” 20” 42” >19” Background Information on Cottonwood Trees • It is well documented that cottonwood trees are hazardous trees that are prone to rot from the inside out, with no visible signs of this decay on the outside of the tree. Trunk analysis is necessary to determine the extent of decay. • Their roots are known to damage pipes and other infrastructure. • Their “cotton fuzz” seeds are a serious fire hazard and nuisance for municipalities and property owners. • Hundreds, if not thousands, of municipalities in the US have banned these trees for the above reasons. “The Dirt Doctor” Article on Cottonwood Trees: • The author, Howard Garret is: • Nationally syndicated Organic Gardening talk show host • Arborist and specialist in natural organic tree care • Columnist for the Dallas Morning News • Author of 15 books on organic gardening, landscaping and pest control • Chairman of Texas Organic Research Center (TORC) • Organic Advisory Board Texas Department of Agriculture • https://www.dirtdoctor.com/garden/Cottonwood_vq924.htm The Dirt Doctor – Cottonwood Trees • FINAL SPACING: Do not plant • IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION: Cottonwood is a very fast growing, upright messy tree. It sends out cotton all over the place in the spring, has brittle wood and it has large limbs. Its root system is extremely shallow, ravenous and destructive. It normally will have quite a bit of dead wood in the tree. • PROBLEMS: Cottonwood is short lived, has a destructive root system and the cottony seed from the female plant is a nuisance and damaging to electrical appliances. Stressed trees are commonly attacked by borers. The root system is susceptible to cotton root rot and other root diseases. This is a dangerous tree because large limbs or the entire tree can fall on cars, structures and even people. This is one tree that should be removed from most residential property. Southern Living Article on Cottonwoods: • 6 Trees You Should Never, Ever Plant • Terrible Tree #4 -- Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides) • What's wrong with it: Extremely messy, very weedy, breaks up in storms, short-lived, very prone to insects and diseases, roots crack pavement and invade water lines. • Comment: As with hackberry, most people saddled with this garbage tree live with it because no other trees will grow there. I can't think of a messier tree. In addition to the sticks, twigs, broken branches, and leaves that shower down almost every day, it also blankets the yard around it in early summer with cottony seeds -- hence, the name "cottonwood." The cotton rolls up into lumpy pillows of foam that roll across the ground and pile up against houses, walls, and fences. The only good use for this nasty tree is as firewood. Burn one today! • https://www.southernliving.com/garden/grumpy-gardener/6-trees-you-should-never-ever-plant Trees That Can Be Planted Over Water Pipes By Angela Ryczkowski Updated December 14, 2018 • Trees are usually prized elements in a landscape, but a sprawling root system may sometimes pose a threat to sidewalks, buried utilities and other features, including water pipes. Most sound pipes are able to withstand some amount of contact with tree roots. However, roots may penetrate or damage water pipes when the pipes are perforated drain pipes or are old, or the tree has a particularly strong, aggressive root system. Choosing a suitable tree species or cultivar and preparing the site well helps to protect water pipes. • Trees to Avoid • Certain trees should never be planted near water lines, as they are often fast-growing with particularly aggressive roots. Many species in the Acer (maple) genus, Populus species, ashes, sycamore, several oaks, willows, basswood, tuliptree, elms, birches, mulberry, figs, large eucalyptus and beeches are unsuitable for planting near water pipes and other underground or surface structures. • Cottonwood Trees are in the Populus species • https://homeguides.sfgate.com/trees-can-planted-over-water-pipes-28358.html Zillow Article on Cottonwood Trees: Don't Plant These Trees in Your Urban Yard By Mary Boone on 8 May 2013 While it’s true that many trees can add beauty, privacy and shade to your property, others have the potential to wreak havoc thanks to invasive root systems, prickly thorns, messy fruit or weak branches. Choosing the best tree for your urban backyard is a tough decision. Make a bad choice, and remorse will be yours for years to come. • When you’re thinking about the perfect tree for your urban lawn, here are a few that you probably should avoid: • Cottonwood (Populus) • These trees are generally so weak and unstable that even mild storms can cause branch failures. While the trees’ invasive root systems and branch shedding habits can be beneficial in rural and forested settings, they’re not a great choice in urban areas. Their size is often overwhelming, they give off a urine-like scent, and their fast-spreading root systems can crack foundations and sidewalks. Cottonwood trees have been banned from planting within many U.S. neighborhoods and cities because the “cotton” from them clogs filters and is generally untidy. • https://www.zillow.com/blog/dont-plant-these-trees-in-your-urban-yard-118479/ What Complications Arise from Cottonwood Trees? Joshua Wilke | July 1, 2019 Cottonwoods are a trouble-making tree for many reasons. They have those irritating seeds that float into every nook and cranny, and sticky buds that fall off everywhere. These buds are troublesome to get off of cars and will stain carpets yellow if tracked inside. Even though they can practically grow all over the United States and in many environments, cottonwoods are not as resilient as they seem. They are a fast-growing species. In fact, they are the fastest growing trees in North America, growing 6 feet or more in height per year. This puts them at risk for having weaker, more porous wood than other types of trees. They have a propensity to be penetrated by infestations, to rot, and to break more easily. Because their weak wood is more likely than other trees to be diseased, rotten, or bug infested, they are more likely to die, break, and fall. The summer season is especially dangerous as it is a time when cottonwoods are growing too fast for their own good, thus making them more vulnerable to breakage. Because they grow so easily and quickly in many places, their root systems are likely to spread where they shouldn’t and tear underground things, like pipes, apart. They also are a major culprit in the destruction of wetlands and retaining ponds. https://www.skyhightreeremoval.com/2019/07/01/what-complications-arise-from-cottonwood-trees/ Are Cottonwood Trees Illegal to Plant In Denver? by Jon Cook / October 1, 2018 / Tree Maintenance This may surprise you, but cottonwoods have been outlawed in much of the Denver metro area for the greater part of the past ten years. So, why is it illegal to plant cottonwoods in Denver? Because they are a massive and invasive tree species, and they have a habit of wanting to share your living space and even your utilities. Cottonwoods are part of the populus tree species, the same species family as aspens. If you’re familiar at all with aspens, then you know that an entire mountainside of aspens may, in fact, be only one tree that branched out, sprouted up, and continued growing. It’s because aspens and cottonwoods are highly invasive in their surrounding areas. While some trees have a taproot (one main root that grows straight down), cottonwoods and aspens grow a wide range of roots that have a voracious appetite for water. This all sounds well and good until someone plants a cottonwood tree in a front yard less than 20 feet away from the main water supply. Within a matter of years, a normal cottonwood will quickly find and break into the water supply ductwork. This means massive cleanup on the behalf of the homeowner, not to mention the financial cost of repairs and the hassle of a messy front yard. And, it can get worse, because it’s not just incoming water sources that cottonwoods love. They search for any ‘liquid’, water-type source, so your outgoing sewer line is often just as easily the victim of thirsty cottonwoods. That’s when you end up in deep ‘stuff’, as well as having the same type of problem as before but with a horrible smell. Cottonwoods also have incredibly strong root systems, which serves them well for longevity and poses another threat to homeowners. Cottonwoods planted too close to structures, namely basement walls and garage foundations, will break through the concrete walls over time. You may love having a big basement, but no basement is meant to have a cottonwood as a live-in guest. This is why cottonwood trees are largely illegal to plant in the Denver metro area. Homeowners, HOAs, city officials, and repair crews are tired of cleaning up after cottonwoods. However, if you have a significant amount of property, you may still consider planting a cottonwood. We highly recommend checking with your local forestry service, HOA, and/or city authorities to see if cottonwoods are permissible for new plants. https://fieldingtreeandshrubcare.com/homeowners-guide-taking-care-cottonwood-trees-denver/ Municipalities identified that have banned Cottonwood Trees: (Not an exhaustive list) • Franklin, WI • Mukwonago, WI • Reno, NV - ROW banned • Clinton, IA - ROW banned • Madison,WI • Denver,CO • Windsor, CO • Lone Tree, CO • Oklahoma City, OK • Winnemucca, NV • Albuquerque, NM • Beloit, WI Municipalities that have banned Cottonwood Trees (Cont’d): • Madison,WI - Madison ordinance number 23.27: "Cotton bearing poplar trees restricted. No person shall sell or plant any female cotton bearing tree of the poplar family commonly called the Eastern Cottonwood, Populus deltoides, and the White Poplar, Populus alba, within the boundaries of the City of Madison.“ • Windsor, CO - Charter and Municipal Code, Chapter 7 - Health, Sanitation and Animals, Article IV - Trees, Section 7-4-10. - Cotton-bearing cottonwood trees. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, plant, transplant, keep or maintain any cotton- bearing cottonwood trees in the Town. (c) For purposes of the enforcement of the ordinance codified herein, the Town declares cotton- bearing cottonwood trees to be a nuisance and subject to the provisions of this Code with regard to the abatement of nuisances. Municipalities that have banned Cottonwood Trees (Cont’d): • Oklahoma City, OK - ordinance chapter 53 - Trees & Shrubs, 53-5 - Certain Trees Prohibited "No person shall plant or permit the planting of black locust, seed- bearing female cottonwood, or any other tree condemned by the Director of Parks and Recreation for the purpose of protecting the public health or to prevent destruction of other plants by spread of disease. The male non-seed-bearing cottonwood tree is specifically excepted from the provisions of this section. The Director shall prepare a list of condemned trees and file it with the City Clerk. " Texas Municipalities that have exempted Cottonwood Trees from protection: • Coppell - means any living tree species, six inches DBH or larger, which is not on the "unprotected tree list" that shall be subject to the preservation, protection, and replanting requirements of article 34, division 2. • Duncanville - any tree having a caliper of six inches or more that is not one of the following: mesquite, bois d'arc, thorny honey locust, hackberry, cottonwood, cedar, china-berry (common), native black willow, and native red/white mulberry. Texas Municipalities that have exempted Cottonwood Trees from protection: • Frisco - trees that meet one of the following requirements and determined to be healthy by the Director of Planning or his/her designee: Any tree eight (8") inches or larger in diameter when measured at a point four and one-half feet (4’ 6”) above the ground level and which normally attains a height of at least twelve (12’) feet at maturity, and located within the Protected Area; A tree(s) 20.1 caliper inches and larger; A Stand of Trees. The following trees shall not be included in the above definition of Protected Trees: Silver Leaf Maple, Sugarberry, Honey Locust, Bois d’ Arc, Mimosa, Mulberry, White Poplar, Cottonwood, Mesquite, and Willow. Texas Municipalities that have exempted Cottonwood Trees from protection: • Helotes - trees having a nominal caliper of 12 inches or, if branched below four and one-half feet, measured at the narrowest trunk segment between the lowest branch and the natural grade. All species of woody plants attaining a mature height over 15 feet and meeting the nominal caliper of 12 inches requirement are "mature trees" for the purposes of this article, except those listed immediately hereafter as not protected. The following genus or species are not protected: Ash juniper, Cottonwood, Sycamore, Hackberry, Mulberry, Chinaberry, Boxelder, Chinese Tallow, Mesquite, and Huisache. Texas Municipalities that have exempted Cottonwood Trees from protection: • Rowlett - means a tree the trunk of which has a DBH of eight inches (approximate 25-inch circumference), that is not one of the following trees: Tree of Heaven, Mimosa or Silk tree, Sugarberry, Horse apple/Bois D'Arc, Chinaberry, Black Willow, Chinese Tallow, Siberian Elm, Cotton Wood, Hackberry (11-inch DBH or smaller), Lotus (Buckthorn Family). • Many other Texas municipalities have tree protection ordinances that have lists of “protected” species or lists of “unprotected” species. Cottonwoods are typically not protected due to the issues they cause and their lack of deisrability. FACTS related to Cottonwood Trees: • Fast-growing, brittle wood, prone to rot and decay. Entire trees and large branches are prone to fall. • Aggressive roots destroy City water mains and property owners’ water pipes. • Cotton Fuzz – excessive amounts of fuzz are produced and blanket adjacent properties. The fuzz is an extreme fire hazard, clogs A/C units, and is otherwise a general nuisance that prevents the reasonable use of property. • The City of Austin and adjacent property owners in Crown Ct have all of these problems with the subject trees. DAMAGE TO PIPES: • Michael Alvis, from Austin Water, provided repair details for water main repairs from 2000-2020. The City of Austin incurred over $61,000 in water main repairs in the last 20 years due to these trees. • The work order dates indicate that at least 8 repairs have been done in the last 20 years. • Urban Forester has been provided this data directly from Mr. Alvis. Work Order # Activity Asset Type Completed Subtotal Contractor Cost Labor Cost Material Cost Tool Cost Vehicle Cost Extra Item Cost 1878898 WM09 Water Main 5/22/2018 1777.5905 869.2725 367.028 1314160 FHY09 Water Hydrant 6/26/2013 349.48 1566622 WS09 Water Service Line 2/23/2015 1505.22 1567213 CS35 Water Service Line 2/26/2015 157307 WS09 Water Service Line 1670 9/2/2003 2/2/2016 3/1/2016 3/1/2016 1726384 MBX11 Water Meter 1727276 MTR11 Water Meter 1727277 MTR11 Water Meter 1748401 FHY19 Water Hydrant 9/26/2016 1879015 CS11 5/23/2018 1879018 WS09 Water Service Line 5/22/2018 2012255 FHY19 Water Hydrant 8/20/2020 206766 WS09 Water Service Line 7/30/2004 206799 CS34 Water Service Line 8/3/2004 234772 WS09 Water Service Line 2/25/2005 2234.64 1649.2 34467 SBCCO Water Meter 2/11/2000 112.15 561979 WS09 Water Service Line 6/21/2009 8562.29 7188.3 561987 CS30 Water Service Line 7/17/2009 43.61 745080 WS09 Water Service Line 8/20/2010 2462.42 1466 982023 WS09 Water Service Line 10/17/2011 767.37 147.71 676.58 49.18 396.32 47.75 7.62 7.62 18.44 19.5075 230.61 17.5285 305.19 75.06 248.75 72.74 639.95 12.91 484.45 469.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76.77 470.12 10 75.56 128.32 128.32 1.5 0 0 367.62 2.43 65.2 63.24 115.67 12.11 219.86 28.8 119.4 113.44 119.92 354.61 125.25 270.75 106.76 78.48 78.48 1.45 532.55 12.35 238.445 18.85 177.66 145.87 221.02 27.3 424.27 1.9 228.35 167.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.08 3.91 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.39 8.74 0.0143 6.44 0.092 2.69 89.91 164.22 16.03 0.46 1879019 WS17 Water Service Line 5/22/2018 1408.1931 557.3075 611.9806 238.445 184.43 2412.63 154.51 214.42 214.42 21.78 31.8718 843.115 38.9005 550.74 284.17 $24,173.95 $36,000.00 $61,845.39 Total Street Cut Estimated Totals Combined totals 6 other Cul-De-Sacs on same Street • None of the 6 other Cul-de-Sacs have incurred any water main repairs in 20 years. - $0.00 infrastructure. • All Cul-de-sacs have identical infrastructure and age as Crown Ct’s • Crown Ct is the only Cul-de-sac with 4 large Cottonwood trees in the Right-of-Way within a few feet of the water main. • Cottonwood trees are known to damage pipes! 42” Cottonwood Tree and Water Main • Largest tree in Cul-de-sac. • Diseased and dying. • Base of tree is less than 3ft from water main. Valve for water main 20” Cottonwood Tree and Water Main • Base of tree is within inches of the street pavement. • Street cuts from water main repairs are at the tree. • Street cuts directly adjacent to this tree indicate that this tree is at least responsible for some of the damage to the water mains. Street cuts at base of tree 34” Tree and 20” Tree damaging property owner’s pipes • Property owner provided repair invoices and pictures of pipe damage caused by these trees and their roots • Large roots from both trees are on my water line. Both have caused damage to my pipes. • Urban Forester was immediately dismissive of these facts. • Made decisions and assertions without ever visiting or inspecting the situation. • Made false statements about tree roots and water pipes. • Refused to assist me with my problems. Lisa states that I am not even allowed to cut the roots that are damaging my pipes. Please note her statement that cottonwood trees are prone to decay when the roots are cut. 34” Tree and 20” Tree damaging property owner’s pipes • Urban Forester refuses to acknowledge issues with pipes. • Urban Forester states that I am not allowed to cut the roots damaging my pipes decision. • Urban Forester refuses to acknowledge my request to appeal her • What rights do property owners have in this process? 34” Tree – roots visibly bending water valves on the surface. Urban Forester refused to acknowledge this fact. Root was excavated by Austin Water – Roots are clearly destroying pipes. Large root from 20” Cottonwood tree over my water main. Has previously caused damage to my pipes. Yellow line indicates approximate location of water line. City Council Intervention • Property owner had to seek assistance from Austin Water, the City Council, and City legal department. • Urban Forester refused to acknowledge my request for an appeal. • After city council involvement, Urban Forester reluctantly agreed to re-assess my situation. Criteria Warranting Removal of the trees. • Urban Foreseter agreed to remove the 34” tree but not the 20” tree. • No documentation or explanation given to support their decision, except for one vague e-mail. tree. • The same criteria can and should be used to justify and remove the 20” • Two arborists, Lisa Killander and John Robinson, inspected the trees and were on-site for about an hour. Almost no information was documented, and no risk assessment was recorded. • The Urban Forester has no listed criteria for what warrants removal and does not document their work or justify their decisions in any way. URBAN FORESTER’S CRITERIA TO REMOVE TREE • Urban Forester stated that the cost to relocate the water main exceeds the value of the 34” tree. • This is also true for the 20” tree. • Both trees have caused damage and will continue to cause damage to my pipes. • Lisa inquired with Mr. Alvis at Austin Water and was told that this 20” tree will most likely continue to cause me problems. Apparently, this wasn’t persuasive to the Urban Forester’s decision. Lisa asks Mike Alvis of Austin Water about the 20” tree affecting my pipes. A “formal inspection” will be conducted. Where is the report or documentation for this assessment? Mike Alvis replies that he feels the tree will continue to affect my waterline COST TO RELOCATE WATER METER • Michael Alvis from Austin water provided costs to relocate the water meters affected by the trees. This only reflects the cost to the City and does not include the thousands of dollars that the property owners would also have to pay for their waterlines. • 13213 Villa Park. Dr. • Relocate service = $2k • Street cut = $6K • • Abandon Existing Service @ main = $1K • Street cut = $6K • • 8802 Crown Ct. • Relocate service = $2K • Street Cut - $6K • • Total estimate = $23K The Austin Environmental Criteria Manual – Section 3.5.4 states how to value a Tree A standard formula of one caliper inch of replacement value is equivalent to $200.00, or $75 for certified affordable developments and placed into the UFRF. (NOTE: This option is not intended to facilitate the excessive removal of trees.) Trees have varying values based upon numerous tree and site conditions (see ECM 3.5.1). The following mitigation rates apply for medium valued trees; however the City Arborist may raise or reduce these rates for high or low valued trees: • greater than 19 inches diameter and located in Appendix F - 100% 20” x $200.00 x 100% = $4,000.00 20” Tree Value Vs Meter Costs • The 20” tree does not appear to be affecting my neighbor’s water-line but its roots have damaged my pipes and will continue to do so. • The cost on the City to relocate just my water main is $15k. This exceeds the tree’s value of $4k by more than 300%. The costs to the city alone warrants removal of this tree. • This is the exact same criteria used by the Urban Forester to warrant removal of the 34” tree. all trees and not just one. • I request that the same criteria used to warrant removal be applied to 42” Tree and Cost to relocate Water Main • The same criteria should be used to warrant removal of the 42” Tree as well. • The cost to relocate a water main, if its even possible to do so, far exceeds the value of the tree and therefore warrants removal. • The city replaced the water mains in my Cul-de-sac in Feb 2019. Relocating the pipes again, instead of removing the trees, seems like a wasteful use of City resources. No Documentation for Inspection • When I asked for copies of the inspection documentation, I was provided a blank ISA tree risk assessment form and a scan of a small sheet of note paper • Two arborists, Lisa Killander and John Robinson, from the City of Austin were onsite for about an hour. A decision was made not remove the 20” tree and no documentation exists showing how they arrived at their conclusions. ALL DOCUMENTS FROM THE INSPECTION This is the only documentation created from the visit. There is no risk assessment being performed here. Please note the presence of carpenter ants. PROBLEMS RELATED TO “COTTON FUZZ” • There are 4 large female cottonwood trees in Crown Ct. • These trees produce prolific amounts of seeds (“Cotton Fuzz”) from mid-March to mid-July (over 4 months). • The fuzz inundates the adjacent properties clogging A/C units and creating a serious fire hazard. • 30-45min of cleaning daily (for 4 months) is necessary just to keep my breaker box and A/C unit cleaned. • Cleaning this fuzz from my entire ¼ acre lot is impractical and would require several hours each day to maintain. WIND DIRECTION IN AUSTIN, TX • The predominant average hourly wind direction at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport varies throughout the year. • The wind is most often from the south for 10 months, from February 3 to December 8, with a peak percentage of 77% on July 13. • The Wind in Austin is predominantly from the south when the Fuzz is present. These trees are all south of my property. • The wind deposits a lot of this fuzz onto my property and clogs my A/C unit daily. WIND DIRECTION A/C Unit 34” 20” 42” >19” CLOGGED A/C UNIT FROM “COTTON FUZZ” I have been informed by my A/C company that if my compressor fails due to this “fuzz” they cannot replace it under warranty. THE FUZZ IS A SERIOUS FIRE HAZARD Please see the linked videos for information on the serious fire hazard these trees present for property owners: Please note the amount of fuzz in the air and on the ground https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2016/06/23/fluffy-gasoline- raises-fort-collins-fire-concerns/86281998/ FUZZ RELATED ISSUES: • Besides the serious fire hazard it presents, the fuzz is also an overall nuisance. The fuzz prevents me from being able to host any kind of gathering outside on my property for 4 months. • The fuzz gets into your mouth when talking. • It lands on your food and drinks when grilling or if serving food outside. • It covers the entire surface of a kiddie pool within minutes. • I cannot even give my kids sparklers on the 4th of July due to the fire hazard in my yard. HOLIDAYS/EVENTS AFFECTED BY THE FUZZ • Spring Break • St Patrick’s Day • Easter • Cinco De Mayo • Memorial Day • Flag Day • Fourth of July • And every weekend in between! TREE CONDITIONS ARE DETERIORATING: • In February 2019 Austin Water replaced all water mains, pipes and meters in my Cul-de-sac. • This replacement required extensive trenching in the critical root zones of all 4 cottonwood trees. • Urban Forester stated that cottonwood trees are prone to decay when this is done. • In the two summers since the roots were cut all trees have deteriorated rapidly in condition. • Many factors indicate that both the 42” and 20” trees are in a decaying and hazardous state. WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT – FEB 2019 A/C Unit 34” 20” 42” >19” The critical root zones of all 4 trees were cut in multiple locations in order to replace the water mains and meters. The trees have declined rapidly since then. 20” Tree has many indicators of a hazardous tree. • The tree has rotted roots • The tree has heart rot at its base, verified by the presence of carpenter ants. • The tree has a lean and the lean has increased this summer. It leans toward the north in the direction of my driveway and house. Root is rotted indicating poor health and a potentially hazardous situation Tree leans to the North. In direct line of my driveway and home. The lean has increased this summer. Trees are 90% likely to fall in the direction of their lean. This tree is in direct line of falling on my car and home. The impact of any fall would be significant. 42” Tree is Diseased and Dying • The tree has extensive fungal and bacterial infections. • The tree is rotting from the inside and being chewed up by carpenter ants. • Michael Jones, an arborist with the Urban Forester, inspected this tree and recommended it for removal. • Lisa Killander overruled that decision without ever seeing the tree. • No explanation has been given for choosing to not remove the tree. • This tree is in extremely bad shape and could fall at any moment. Fungus at the base of the tree. Indicates the tree is diseased and rotting from the inside. The rotted heartwood is being chewed up by carpenter ants and is visible all around the base of the tree. The black sap indicates a bacterial “wetwood” infection is also present. Further indicating that the tree is in poor shape and requires removal. USDA FOREST SERVICE HAZARD TREE GUIDE: • USDA Forest service has a hazardous tree guide. This guide indicates ways to identify and mitigate hazards. • Although any tree in poor condition can be hazardous, the guide lists 6 specific species of trees that are prone to being hazardous. • Cottonwood trees are one of the 6 identified tree species. • The guide states that Cottonwood trees, or any trees displaying these symptoms require a trunk analysis, with a resistograph or similar device, to determine the extent of the decay and hazard. • No trunk analysis has been performed by the Urban Forester on any of these trees. Careful inspection of trees for conks or mushrooms of wood decay fungi is important. Use of a drill or increment borer may be necessary to determine the extent of decay in the stem and lower bole. USDA FOREST SERVICE HAZARD TREE GUIDE: • The guide also gives examples of how to perform a tree risk assessment. • According to the guide the tree risk factors identified for both the 42” and 20” trees indicate a high to very high hazard rating score. HAZARD TREE GUIDE: • Based on current observed conditions of the trees, the hazard score would be a 7 or 8. That is a high to very high hazard rating. • Urban forester has no documentation of any measurements, analysis or any other way to show how they came to their conclusions that these trees are low risk. Inconsistencies with Urban Forester Documents • Michael Jones inspected the 42” Tree and observed fungal growth and advance decay. He recommended that the tree be removed. • Lisa Killander overruled Mr. Jones and decided to keep the tree. She made this decision before she ever saw the tree herself. • Scott McMillan created a work order report, implying that he inspected the tree. The report has many inconsistencies, and it misstates the condition of the tree. • The Urban Forester is using this misstated report as justification for not removing the tree. The photo attachment to Mr. McMillan’s report is of the wrong tree. Inconsistencies with Scott’s report: • The report was written by someone who did not inspect the tree. • The report incorrectly states the tree has no issues when it is diseased and seriously decayed. • Report seeks second opinion when the tree was identified with no issues. • It mentions that the tree is not blocking the sidewalk – there is no sidewalks in Crown Ct. • The attached photo to his report is of the wrong tree. Mr. Jones took pictures of all 4 cottonwood trees during his visit and Mr. McMillan must have used the wrong picture. • The report mentions that they will follow-up on the tree in October. It is now mid-November and they still haven’t re-inspected the tree. The tree’s condition has gotten significantly worse since July. E-mails between Urban Forestry staff indicate possible bias: • The following string of e-mails indicates that the Urban Forestry staff may have allowed bias to affect their decisions. Shane indicates to Lisa Killander and Scott McMillan that this tree is near me. Scott remarks “what a coincidence” when he is notified of the tree being located near me. Lisa also remarks about this being a “coincidence” and “hopes” the tree is not in poor condition. This e-mail was sent the day Michael Jones (nicknamed Cody) inspected the tree. As you can see Mr. McMillan is asking for someone to meet him at the site. Mr. Jones came by himself and Mr. McMillan never inspected the tree. Mr. Jones indicates to Lisa and Scott that the tree is diseased and warrants removal. They were aware of the tree’s true condition. Lisa is citing the misstated report as justification for not removing the tree when she knows it is not an accurate report! She also mentions a site visit from the Program Manager. When did the program manager visit the site? 42” Tree Condition and Liability on the City • Allowing a severely decayed tree to stand is a very dangerous decision by the Urban Forester. • Any damage caused by this tree would be considered negligence and would put a large liability on the City. • Me and my neighbors are greatly concerned about the safety of our families and property regarding this tree. • No reason or justification has been given as to why Lisa overruled Mr. Jones assessment of the tree. USDA HAZARD GUIDE MENTIONS NEGLIGENCE (State laws are similar): Legal obligations Visitors assume some level of risk when they recreate on public lands, but managers who create and maintain designated recreation areas are responsible for ensuring visitor safety for reasonably foreseeable hazards. The Federal Tort Claims Act generally holds the federal government liable in the same way as a private party for negligent acts committed by federal employees in the course of their employment. Failure to inspect and treat known hazard trees in developed recreation areas may be considered negligent… It is the responsibility of managers to inspect and correct the most serious threats or foreseeable dangerous conditions in order to minimize the potential for injury to visitors or damage to property. USDA HAZARD GUIDE MENTIONS NEGLIGENCE (Cont’d): Generally, liability in cases that involve injuries or damage resulting from hazard trees is based on what a reasonable professional in the situation would have done. If a manager knew, or should have known, of a hazard but failed to take reasonable actions to alleviate the hazard, the federal government may be liable for negligence. The individual manager may also be personally liable if such inaction is considered beyond the scope of his/her employment. $28 million to go to family of woman killed by falling tree at wedding in Whittier park • By Hayley SmithStaff Writer • Oct. 20, 2020 • 11:03 AM • The family of a San Pedro woman who was killed by a falling tree at her daughter’s wedding nearly four years ago has reached a tentative $28-million settlement with the city of Whittier, according to court documents filed by the plaintiffs’ attorney. • Margarita Mojarro, 61, was at Whittier’s Penn Park in December 2016 when a 70-foot blue gum eucalyptus fell onto the wedding party as they posed for pictures. Mojarro was killed, and several others were injured, including a 3-year-old girl who suffered irreparable brain damage. • “There is no amount of money that can bring back family members or heal the damage that was done,” said Brian Leinbach, the plaintiffs’ attorney, “but they are pleased to put this tragic event behind them, and they feel good about that.” • The lawsuit, filed in 2017, alleged that the city should have known about the danger of the tree, which the suit said was “negligently, carelessly, and recklessly maintained in dangerous character and condition attributable to advanced rot and decay.” SUMMARY OF TREE ISSUES: • Roots from both trees (42” & 20”) have damaged city infrastructure exceeding $61,000 in repairs. Future damage is also likely. • Roots of the 20” tree have damaged my pipes and will continue to do so. • The cost to relocate the pipes is high and exceeds the value of the trees, thus warranting removal. fire hazard. • The fuzz from all 4 trees is excessive, a nuisance, clogs appliances, and is a serious • The 42” Tree is diseased and severely decayed, which by itself, justifies removal. • Risk/Hazard analysis of the trees indicates a high-risk potential for these trees. • Unfortunately, the only cost-effective way to alleviate all of these problems is to remove the trees. CHANGE TO THE CURRENT PROCESS • The urban forester currently has no written processes or procedures that they follow when assessing trees for removal. • They do not document most of their work, including tree risk assessments, which require collecting and analyzing data and applying equations to that data. • When decisions are reached, no effort is made to explain or justify those decisions. No transparency exists for property owners. • There are no stated criteria listed for what warrants removal. • Property owner’s have zero rights in this process. • Using approved, objective procedures that are well documented is the best way to ensure that a fair and transparent process is being performed. • A nuisance tree list should be considered to identify trees that cause excessive damage and hazards to public and private infrastructure. • More oversight is necessary over the Urban Foresters and their activities. • I have been told I am the first person to ever request an appeal to a tree removal decision under City Ordinance 6-3. No process existed and one has been created to address this situation. I have been provided almost no information on how this appeal process works. THANK YOU! • I would like to thank the Environmental Commission for their time and consideration with this matter. • I like trees and do not take their removal lightly. I feel there is no other cost-effective way to mitigate the multitude of problems these trees cause. • Please understand that I put a lot of time and effort into communicating my situation and having these serious issues addressed. I would not have done so if these issues were not real or serious concerns for me. • If the commission disagrees with removal of these trees would it please provide reasons for this position. Could the commission also explain how it feels these issues could be resolved going forward without tree removal? • Please consider more oversight of the Urban Forestry department and the tree removal process – to include nuisance tree lists, recognition of unnecessary costs to the city, and rights & remedies for property owners.