Loading...
284 Belvedere Street Arborist letter City of tkmdi Carr mO lrsp nem Dqx&m 'aIIII 1x11 tt�UNK t NOWT tW Semi ad RiAdanuc�,F1 32233 QASSIRCA DN O = C -2+7-�tit1 ti PERM# I TOM firs skeWr an inventory in the area below or attach a site pian shov*VaAeKkfinguwsonthe pmpsW brkwv thatare 8diimm4wal bm.w t h (dhh)arrd qraat PkiammmcnpWe the fakrmrKp a mow t#re locatta ols l tr *5 to lMc with an'7C o 9ww**lean of a1 vers to be preserved with-[]- 0 ith-E3- 0 Show The kx aam of all tree's to be vah anCr 0 �1'tamv:��t� ar��r llrarrldr�s o minubwaftm and Wan FXHWff&.Tme WtxA *A 13 � [1 ] -0 .[1 VA [151F1 - 10 _ Decking [1 ] c [9] CLO 14 K -- u 6 Qj x - Decking a ri i 3 a� � 0 Belvedere Street 26 yards 07 a r "UM-t C- ISA Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client GU R AD F`r N8 y Date '1$- 1z) Time 0100 Address/Tree location 2.134 ULukO T - FROm T R1.6mT Tree no. X I jX,1 Sheet_I of_3�_ Treespecies PINUS •o- dbh :9` G•')-° Height '7b' Crown spread dia. 56' Assessor(s), TAI„Loo ?RAM 4L N E747Z R Timeframe 1-3 YEAQ5 Tools used_ e-A,-^RR -Kot5e Target Assessment Target zone /y L occupancy M J2 C Ia 2 c �'rxi •g S l arate e tC R Z M c Target description x 2-orx3s nal ++ Fsv 3-frequent a a '•� d-ronsian[ a XL 2 HouS� H 3 4 Site furs _ History of failures S - - - - Topography FlatJ3 SlopeO % Aspect Site changes NoneEr Grade change Site clearing Changed sail hydrology 13 Root cuts 11 Describe Soilcondidons Umitedvolume❑SaturatedQ ShailowO Compacted0 Pavementoverroots❑ % Describe FLOZ014 6a,-. Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds1l ice❑ Snow❑ Heavy rain 0 Describe_ - Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low❑ Normal 0- High❑ Foliage None(seasonal)Q None(dead)O Normal % Chlorotic—% Necrotic % Pests sl!A _ Abiotic MIA Species failure profile BranchesO TrunkEl Roots[7 Describe RycTS i.re WL, - af,u j av,j; f:AWu j 6 D u c- i., co eti. B Load Tractors Windexposure Protected❑ PartiaiJ2 Full❑ Wind€unneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Largal4 Crown density Sparse❑ Normal`, Dense❑ Interior branches Few)K Normal Dense❑ Vines/Mistletoe/Moss El -!c:, Recent or planned change in load factors �, aLq,,GEU Wcic�ri 7 4ev S Wa._J 5hn1 _.rte Ll!AD P,ln-ali 5 Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the likelihood of Failure r �N -- -- – —Crown and Branches-- unbalanced crownBI LCR ��"':. % Cracks❑ _ -- Lightning damage D d3eati cw+igs/nrancne5 0 �%t�veraii iv'{ax.die.•�� Codominant fl ��R Included baric 13 Broken/Hangers Number __. May-dia. WeakattachmentsD Cavity/Nest hole 9�circ. Ow-extended branches Pruning �histo Previous branch failures 0 �� rri_ Similar branches present❑ Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned .0 Raised ❑ Dead/Missing baric❑ Cankers/GaNs/Burts❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Reduced t q Topped 13 Cion-tailed p Conks❑ Heartwood decay❑ Flush cuts ❑ 0111er Responsegrowtn iY -• _-_-, I mainconcern(s) F �'` ive"CE�1 R�+#r✓Cjt� wiN W(un. Wiu C_OV'C!PL* -% .res- Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant iff �j-Likelihood of failure Improbable 13 Possible 13 Probable X Imminent 0 f —Trunk= ... — �—Roo�arid-Root Crs:3..r Dead/Missing bark ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible❑ Depth Stem girdling❑ Codominant stems 14 included bark❑ Cracks 0 Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze© Ooze 11 Cavity❑ %circ. Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay Conks/Mushrooms❑ Cracks❑ Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper❑ Root plate li€ting;4 Soil weakness.❑ Lean 15- Corrected? Response growth ',IResponse growth Mainconcem(s) 5,40I?E Qr 046k Dcsi- 14, Mainconcem(s) UNW-I�i +4 QR fj AVO k b 45 a _ a o Z2 P4 ILUIZ E Load on defect N/A L7 Minor❑ Moderate❑ SignificantJO Load on defect N/A❑ Minor O Moderate❑ Signftant$ Likelihood of failure Ulmlihood of failure ImprobableEl Possible❑ Probable)§ Imminent❑ improlsabte❑ Passible 13 Prabable`G imminent❑ Page I of 2 Risk Categorization a� Likelihood Failure Impact Failure&Impact Consequences v {from Matrix 1) c ' m Risk _ 3 = m " g Conditions f71 m 0 3 m 3 s s V rain uo Tree part of concern li pro ecliOn £ a° a E > 01 °p = n m „E 'a _c � (romof p — E _ to j 2 i'n to Matrix 2) At6K i AlLtrJ(, a 4 73 1 v I ( N1 1 �l6[ 1 TRuNV Co Dorn U)ul01U 'tom 1 C.� Z rJty XL Ft(6t} 'Root FAILURE DVE 70` h10 ZTo 10?P'6k ('t64 PLATE pttC,-+w6 Zo` `� wa kt b 3 4 Matrix/.Likelihood matrix. ' \ 1 Likelihood Likelihood of impacting Target of Failure Very low Low Medium High h I imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely. Very likely E_ Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Improbable Unlikely Unlikely I Unlikely Unlikely MatrixZ 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 Low Low Moderate Moderate. Unlikely Low Low Low Low Notes,explanations,descriptions 'file UN- Apio w(znit&ruEig Qaois (+P� DoE TO utatFve- W6E66 7 X _i71stQ� F'. Pocs)EiZ t-Lr.►trS Lr+ �I.t. T.oiaG- t r A- XD wi~/lY Uv[v.,l Mitigation options Uyn&U C Residual risk a*/a P9U-W(, d- PLAIT' 96;AL1,4 CARE P 462A rnResidual risk tJb 0 Residua!risk - - Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low E3 Moderate D HighII Extreme 0 Work priority 1V. 2 0 3© 4 Overall residual risk Low 11 Moderate O High❑ Extreme 0 Recommended inspection interval € ` . Data Final ©Preliminary Advanced assessment needed Mo OYes-Type/Reason 014 T Inspection limitations SNone ®Visibility ElAccess OV"Ines ORoot collar buried Describe _ NjR 7hin dalathect was prodwed by the international Stxiely of ArNoritullurr(ISA)and is intended Cor use hyTree Risk Assessment Qualificd(TRAQ)arborisls—2013 Page 2 of 2 ZZ. - Jk - -:r' - � - -fir-' 's•� � � � .�Y= .i .3 flu k ��� r�yw• '�F' � rRv,is.��h � �� - #dam" y s �'� •1 S � - F •,►'1,�. f 'ra�6� � .. .. „Li4 'sem- �- i as � ��� - - c-`a,��- Y. � '�,�'. - '! '«.•' is �.�'7�jrf�'7s - _ ;�r�. �e, +��.e'.� �. ; w' # .r •L i ' x3 - I - 3 ISABasic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client Co NRA D 0!5H 61 Date_ _ �a f 3 Time Ci?a6 Address/Tree location 514 BC--L.VGo ST_- LL—Pr Tree no. X Sheet J of 3 Tree species _ VIuuS CLLOT i 1 dbh_ - .f& G' Height "W-' Crown spread dia.- ' Assessor(s)_ Trema -TkAanrnecL NE-7q-??A Time frame I- lc-Ar25 Toots used eAkRA -P12e Target Assessment Target zone rOCCUP;3nCYID n $a _ £ rate «a c l: c 1 T 1-rare is i m +- = 3-frequent u Target descripban c x ?-asctsianui r ar i u } ul Ni 4-crostw 4 C K rL Hnm6oVUA, XJ X3 Po too i�:JV$C- Po Nd' 3 4 .Site.factors History of failures N R Topography Flat[l Slope© °5 Aspect Site changes None J3 Grade change 0 Site clearing 13 Changed soil hydrologyO Root cuts 0 Describe_ Soli conditions Limited volume©Saturated il Shallow❑ Compacted l3 Pavement over roots 0 % Describe f'1- V-D 1A Prevailing wind direction $C-: Common weather Strong winds 13 ice O Snow 0 Heavy rainJ3 Describe Trees Health and Species Profile Vigor tow© Normal J4 High 0 Foliage None(seasonal)0 None(dead)❑ Normal 90 % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests- - Abiotic NjA Species failure profile BranchesO Trunk Roots19 Describe SO 442.E F-Ro�► MiLatn F(-Pc,TvItE5 Ertl FW-e 14 CT Load:Factors Wind exposure Protected 0 Partial CJ Full% Wind funneling£] Relative crown size Small[3 Medium O Large 9' Crowndensity SparseO NormalEl Dense# Interior branches FewE3 NormaK3 DenseJff vines/m oe/mvssl9 41n,Es _ &o.,(- Recent owERecent or planned change in load factors --- Tree Defects and Con=ditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure Crown and Branches FUnbalanced crown P' LCR qO % Cracks 0 Lightning damage 09s/Firanches L3 overall Max u a. Codominant a lao a T2o"v1C included baric l9ngers Number Max.dia- Weak attachments 0 Cavity/Nest hole%circ. over-extended branches Pruning history Previous branch failures D Similar branches present Crown cleaned 0 Thinned Q Raised p Dead/Missingbark D Cankers/Galls/burls n Sapwood damage/decay0 Reduced Cl Topped 13 Lion tailed © Conks D Heartwood decay Q Flush cuts 0 Other Response growth Mainconcem(s) a,U._-;�� t ri_i t5 ti'+J!',XLANLEQ t L.�nrn_t�=!_-- u�El(,4-tiS e&s5r,oT-i SrOC Load on defect N/A Q Minor © Moderate© Significant E3 likelihood of failure Improbable 13 Possible L7 Probable D imminent Q —Trunk— hoots and Root Collar— Dead/Missing bark CI Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collarburied/lVot visible 13 Depth Stem girdling C3 Codominant stems 0 Included bark 13 Cracks❑ Dead D Decay 0 Conks/Mushrooms D Sapwood damage/decay O Cankers/Galls/Burls© Sap ooze Ooze 0 Cavity 0 %circ. Lightning damage O Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms Q Cracks O Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper Lean 45 " Corrected? "0 Qt plate l� Soil weakness❑ Response growth N A Response growth - Mainconcern(s) -M10-.o FIIV-12 ESori t�U,Jtc Mainconcem(s)-kDOT ILAiE Sk-10 , <,io35 C.J !-KonA, w6t Grl T 4 W -JO 61cCO5u9X; LjJF . Load on defect N/A© Minor❑ Moderate 17 Significant IN Loadon defect N/A13 Minor[3 Moderate Cl SignificantO Lid of fai3tti of fa:;urr: improbabiel l Possible Cl ProbableM Imminent 0 improbableO Possible EJ Probable Imminent Page I of 2 1 Risk Categorization likelihood --- - m v Failure&impact Consequences s M Failure Impact (from Matrix ll c " c 3 m Risk Q H m = .2 rating Conditions N Target E °f a of part O ria y n a O 3 a _m v m °c {Irnm u Tree part of concern a ri i10 protection a a £ > ° = o " a °' =° m Z I � to an aviatrix 2l TtUN541' 007-d3, C654m 10' 70' 4)) 14164loJ l 4 r y 3 � 4 Matrix 1.Likelihood matrix. UWhood likelihood of Impacting Target of Failure: very tow Low Medium High '' ` 45%P05ut imminent Unlikely, Somewhat likely Likely Very likely Od t^ ' Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely. ukely , Possible 1 Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely � tmprobalite I unlikely Unlikely Unlikely, unlikely Motrix2 Risk rating matrix- g�� v6� Likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure&Impact Negligible Minor Significant Severe Wry likely Low. Moderate High Extreme Likely Low Moderate . . High High Somewhat likely LownLow. . Moderate Moderate L t3nlikely UvW v_•. Low Low Low Notes,explanations,descriptions W61104T OF uvRALAoce,3 Cl2y...rs, LE+��3 SAP FRynn jjcj2b �aLijule? iNot C/"Te (sVTUILrc F41 LVaa vF r-E-6 Mitigation options Residual risk �l�4tf`f Plvn�C _ Residual risk loo°G Residual risk Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Low Cl Moderate l3 HighV, Extreme❑ Work priority 10 20 3 JR 40 Overall residual risk I_ow_5, Moderate Q High[] Extreme it Recommended inspection interval t !t►o Data final 0 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed©No OYes-Type/Reason I"1 I} Inspection limitations JjNone [)Visibility OAccess Mines Moot collar buried Describe _ [1i Jet Titin d;>iWw t aa�i,nu1tta4 bytik•iitlern.titn.ai titxiiHrofAt{u,ricaiture(ISA)and i�intended ii,r use brTrrc Risk Asvi<mens Qualified[TRAQi arborists-20i_3 Page 2 of 2 4 } .rte t `;�• -�'_ � . . .�,ry' �_` _• _ t •t ■ • 1' _ r�._e f T �. .� •i�•r ISA. Basic Tree Risk Assessment Form Client CO u P94 D Ajh91q Date Time 0 :0a Address/Tree location 6cLVC-ti Kg Ss no. - t,.6FT Tree no.�`Sheet�_of Tree species P tA,iU5 CcuiO -6" dbh Height -iQ` Crown spread dia. 50` Assessor(s)_T4uz j TP-Am ME(-L ly9 71411 A Time frame I� c i2� Tools used 4sM2r� -eiR Target Assessment Target zone `m � c c Occupancy n. rate g c i s Target description 3 ,"-i 3 = t-rare E° a^— Q �� x 2-occasional +Wa-5 v 20 ED$ !-s L 3-frequent 3 9 4-constant o p a)iS 1 I�,CsM�p fL5 '� tv�i6Tt$Ut2 t N6 JQ, 2 house - �t�cGFt3ofL 3 No NO 4 Site Factors History of failures ' IR Topography FlatOSlope❑ % Aspect Site changes None Grade change❑ Site clearing Changed soil hydrology El Root cuts Describe tJ I'q Soil conditions Limited volume❑SaturatedM Shallow Compacted❑ Pavement over roots❑ % Describe firs apLA Prevailing wind direction Common weather Strong winds Ice Snow Heavy rain Describe Tree Health and Species Profile Vigor Low❑ Normal Ir High❑ Foliage None(seasonal)❑ None(dead)❑ Normal--qa % Chlorotic % Necrotic % Pests— bijA Abiotic Species failure profile Branches 19 Trunk IN Roots Eir Describe ticE Et6at7 + ttb[r✓0 + o07 PL- Tc- L4fTt,,,G• — Load Factors Windexposure Protected[] Partial❑ FullWind funneling❑ Relative crown size Small❑ Medium❑ Larged Crown density Sparse Normal Denser® Interior branches Few Normal Dense,Q( Vines/Mistietoe/Mossy-!,v 1,jol2 tt(,,,t3 Recent or planned change in load factors Tree Defects and Conditions Affecting the Likelihood of Failure —Crown and Branches— Unbalanced crown 19 LCR o % Cracks❑ f✓ fl Lightning damage 0 Dead twigs/branches® 4 %overall Max.dia. (� Codominant❑ R Included bark❑ Broken/Hangers Number 9- Max.dia, I' Weak attachments CJ Over-extended branches I& Caviiy/!Vest Note_%circ. Pruning history Previous branch failures❑ Similar branches present Crown cleaned ❑ Thinned ❑ Raised ❑ Dead/Missing bark❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Reduced ® Topped ❑ Lion-tailed ❑ Conks❑ Heartwood decay❑ Flush cuts ❑ Either Response growth Main concem(s) UO A OA.AA.r6o Pi4uv lu 6 Go"rjZ &r(M G ca L6^,- d r• td bi.E Y466' Load on defect N/A❑ Minor ❑ Moderate❑ Significant J5 Likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable 4 Imminent ❑ ---Trunk— —Roots and Root:Collar— Dead/Missing baric ❑ Abnormal bark texture/color❑ Collar buried/Not visible❑ Depth Stem girdling❑ Codominant stems ❑ Included bark❑ Cracks❑ Dead ❑ Decay❑ Conics/Mushrooms❑ Sapwood damage/decay❑ Cankers/Galls/Burls❑ Sap ooze❑ ooze ❑ Cavity❑ %circ. Lightning damage❑ Heartwood decay❑ Conks/Mushrooms Cl Cracks❑ Cut/Damaged roots❑ Distance from trunk Cavity/Nest hole %circ. Depth Poor taper❑ Root plate lifting Soil weakness❑ Lean-162 Corrected? NO Response growth ti R p g Response growth Main concern(s)L64—; OF It JA &-mmu gs rd -- �---- Main concem(s) RE A-t _ 'i�vNk B*4,5.� Load on defect N/A❑ Minor❑ Moderate❑ Significant 14 Load on defect N/A❑ Minor❑ Moderate❑ Significant 2"( Likelihood of failure likelihood of failure Improbable❑ Possible❑ Probable In Imminent❑ Improbable❑ Possible❑ ProbableAg Imminent❑ Page 1 of 2 Yq -),-y • Risk Categorization Likelihood __...._.-.._ c v Failure Impact Failure&impact Consequences lfr m Matrix 1) o w Risk m to ++ a d m 3 £ s c rating = Conditions to Target P 4 " of part W Tree part of concern Off. ti protection £ ti a £ °J o to m z o s ani m = . a Brom ti — 2 to in Matrix 21 Tku.,ik FALLtmG ft6i: 30 7c,;, ! 14164 fes' STOIZM 10, H161f 2 Roo`S w1j9 CRV5LjjL �o` Zv` 1 �IIGIf Rox PLA-fE 10` 7d, 2 T& UES r �flCaW 3 4 Matrix 1.likelihood matrix. Likelihood ukelihood of imparting Target N4 of,Failure. Very low Low Medium Hi � t Immenent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Veryr likely / Probable: Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely X ` _ -. / at_n nwBAJwA✓G4? Passible Unlikely Unlikely Unlike Somewhat:likei PIQuRjtN�. � Y w E tLrl'f Improbabfe I Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Matrixl.Risk rating matrix. likelihood of Consequences of Failure Failure&impact _ Negligible Minor s_igoicant Severe Very likely Loan Moderate Nigh Extreme Likes Low Moderate High High Somewhat likely Low low Moderate. Moderate unlikely Lou* Low t w Lbw Notes,explanations,descriptions Tac RU#.)k L64" tv ILL is k,s t?tet ! Cid eaS 4� t�a 1.71} e�nlD Mitigation options (. 0A0vAL. Residual risk O'�e Residual risk (o�d°/, --— Residual risk - .-- Residual risk Overall tree risk rating Law O Moderate O High IJ Extreme O Work priority 111 2Z 30 40 Overall residual risk LowU Moderate O High[] Extreme[3 Recommended inspection interval L nnct.�,J-14 Data Winal 13 Preliminary Advanced assessment needed ONo OYes-Type/Reason _ Inspection limitations ONone OVisibility OAccess ©Vines ORoot collar buried Describe T151+t1;tF•t�1Met nd�rtmhwu :d hr flu•init-mational Suciety ofarburicalturei]SA);urd i,inrendid.ry use1n•Tr.•e Risk A,w,,sment Q alificd ETR-AQarinxiat,-1013 Pap 2 of 2 Nil "r i Root flare above ground indicatest the root system for this pine ' could be jai Compromised leading to potential future failureCrown density is high. Lots Of weight and ability to catch more wind' S.■� ,� � •� .11.x,:- �y�+4" �. i -YF f4 - •; I �- •1 Y 'iyF Picsof dense •• and the base of the trunk showing the lean toward the neighbors house • `^q s! a t f f Root flare high above ground.Root plate lifting Large dense canopy acts as wind sail contributing to lean of tree '1 x .d -nr Dense canopy over neighbors home. J Due to the lean towards the neighbors house with a majority of the weight on that side I would recommend removal of pine X4.The constant wind and dense canopy is weakening the supporting root structure. Even with severe pruning the damage root system would not be sufficient enough to support the tree during future adverse eather conditions 17---