Photo 1 Brick Veneer Separang from Building at Top. Bow in Exterior wall.
30.37 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 2 Crack in Brick Veneer
30.38 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 3 Soil Elevaon is Higher at Tree Blocking Foundaon Vents
30.39 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 4 Brick Veneer Separang from Building
30.40 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 5 Damaged Brick Veneer at Corner
30.41 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 6 ¼” Wide Crack in Foundaon Stem Wall Adjacent to Tree
30.42 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 7 "Y" Shaped Crack in Foundaon Adjacent to Tree
30.43 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 8 Paral Rot at End of Joist Adjacent to Higher Soil Outside of the Building
30.44 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 9 Blocked Foundaon Vent, View from Inside Crawl Space
30.45 Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment
Building Affected by Redwood Tree
Lynwall Apartments, 339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz
Photo 10 2nd Blocked Foundaon Vent View from Inside Crawl Space
30.46 30.47
30.48 30.49
30.50 30.51
ARBORIST FIELD REPORT
TREE ROOT CROWN INSPECTION
Don W. Cox, certified arborist Tree Care-Plant Health Care-IPM [email protected] SITE ADDRESS: 339 Walnut Ave, Santa Cruz, CA 95060
DATE OF INSPECTION: 12/09/2023
REQUESTED BY: Santa Cruz Property Management
TREE DESCRIPTION: COMMON NAME: Coast Redwood
BOTANICAL NAME: Sequoia sempervirens
SIZE: Two stems of 66-inches and 40-inches in diameter, height of 120-feet.
LOCATION ON PROPERTY: Walnut Ave between sidewalk and building.
ASSIGNMENT: Excavate soil with air-spade, between tree root crown and brick siding of apartment building as best possible, in order to inspect points of contact.
PROCESS: A pneumatic “air-spade” was used to blow soil away from the area between the tree and the building, concentrating on the closest points of the tree’s root flare, down to the level where the woody structure contacted the brick siding of the building.
Obstructions (adventitious root mass, bricks, bottles, garbage), the restricted space between tree and building, as well as the extreme sloping site characteristics and powdery soil, made complete excavation and exposure of the desired depth impossible.
A 4-foot plumber’s probe was used to probe the closest points in order to determine if there was contact between the expanding girth of the root crown against the wall of the building.
ASSESSMENT / DETERMINATION: There is definite contact with the wall of the building by the expanding root crown of the tree, as further evidenced by the appearance of a bowed inward curvature of the brick siding at the points of contact.
The air-spade excavation was a poorly advised method for any conclusive inspection, due to the limitations of the equipment and the site characteristics. Further exploration would need to be done possibly with Ground Penetrating Radar.
12/10/2023
_______________________________________________________________________ Donald W. Cox / I.S.A. Certified Arborist WE-3023A
www.FertileEarthLandCare.com
30.52 ARBORIST FIELD REPORT
TREE ROOT CROWN INSPECTION
Don W. Cox, certified arborist Tree Care-Plant Health Care-IPM [email protected]
30.53 30.54
30.55 30.56
G
G
G
G
G
G G G
G
G
G
G G SD
SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SANTA CRUZ HIGH SCHOOL
339
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
SL
W
SL
W
CO
SS
T
T
T
T
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW
FLOW REFERENCES DRAWING #: FIELD BOOK: DESIGN CHECKED DATE DRAWN VAULT NO. SCALE SHEET OF 809 Center Street, Room 201 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 REVISIONS P U B L I C W O R K S D E P A R T M E N T SANTACRUZ C I T Y O F C I T Y O F S A N T A C R U Z C A L I F O R N I A 1866 # EXHIBIT A WALNUT AVE - LINCOLN ST # # DnC DEDnC 11/20/2023 1' = 10' 1 1 NEW RE-INFORCED SIDEWALK WITH #4 REBAR @ 24" O.C. PAVEMENT SECTION 1 3" AC OVER 6" PCC 2 6" PCC RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT NEW CURB RAMP NEW CURB RAMP NEW YIELD LINE NEW CROSSWALK RELOCATE EXISTING STREET LIGHTRELOCATE EXISTING STREET SIGN REMOVE EXISTING SIDEWALK 30.57 Cost Estimate ‐ Lincoln and Walnut
Description Item Total
Mobilization $ 11,580.01
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) $ 1,544.00 Traffic Control and Construction Area Signs $ 15,440.01 Construction Surveying by the Contractor $ 3,860.00 Sidewalk/Roadway $ 40,800.00
Material and Preparation $ 51,830.00
Traffic Signage $ 2,180.00
Traffic Striping and Markings $ 706.00
$ 127,940.02
30.58 Proposal
DATE
3/7/2023
PROPOSAL NO.
92588
NAME / ADDRESS
Santa Cruz Property Management
1240 41st Ave
Capitola Ca 95010
Watsonville Grading & Excavation, Inc.
280 Marigold Ave.
Freedom, CA 95019
CL #900790
SIGNATURE _____________________________________
E-mail [email protected] Phone # 8317284002 Fax # 831-724-9744 DATE
DESCRIPTION COST
Job Site: 339 Walnut Ave Santa Cruz
SCOPE OF WORK: Remove and replace the damaged concrete sidewalk sections around the corner of the building a total of 300 sqft
1. Demo, load and off haul the damaged concrete and gutter pan
2. Excavate the dirt down 6"
3. Import, grade and compact 6" thick of class 2 base rock over the dirt sub grade for both areas
4. Install rebar 18" on center
5. Place and pour concrete sidewalk and gutter pan with six sack 3/4 concrete
6. Pave the road along the new gutter pan with commercial grade hot asphalt Total 8,900.00
NOTE: Price includes the permit for the work above
_____________________________________
If accepted a minimum deposit of 10% will be due. The remaining amount of the contract is to be paid at the completion of the job. Any alteration from the specifications involving extra cost of material or labor will be made in writing, and will be an extra charge over the total mentioned in the contract. Watsonville Grading & Excavation, Inc. is not responsible for any cause or condition beyond our control. Signature below authorizes Watsonville Grading & Excavation to proceed with work related to the contract. Proposals must be signed and returned within 30 days to guarantee the quoted price. Please sign and return one copy with required deposit. Once accepted work is completed the balance is due. A 2% finance charge will be assessed on invoices not paid within 15 days of completion. Exclusions: Unstable soil conditions, any Sub X, water flow under a 2% slope, blemishes caused by wheel steers, cracking or any permit fees.
30.59 From: jan noto
To: City Council
Subject: Redwood tree removal
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 5:03:09 AM
Hello council,
I am a senior citizen who lives downtown and would seriously recommend that you vote to remove the redwood tree on the corner of walnut st across from Santa Cruz high.
I no longer can walk on the side walk, because it is so dangerous. Instead I have to leave the sidewalk and walk in the street. This is a dangerous intersection with cars speeding down the one way hill on walnut going downtown.
Aside from that, at what point does a property owner loose the ability to protect his investment? Is a tree more important than the structural integrity of his building? There are so many of these “heritage “ trees downtown that were planted with no practical thinking that sooner or later they would jeopardize the safety of this neighborhood.
Please allow the owner to remove it as soon as possible without feeling as if you are subtracting the beauty of the neighborhood. We have plenty of redwood trees in the county. We need walkable streets and homes that are not valueless because a tree is too close to the foundation.
Thank you
Jan noto/ owner 616 washington st.
Sent from my iPad
30.60 From: Dusten Dennis
To: City Council
Subject: Remove Heritage Tree on Walnut Ave.
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 9:16:13 AM
Dear City Council,
Please allow the removal of the redwood tree on Walnut Ave. We should not burden property owners with these extra costs and destructive effects to housing in our community.
Thank You,
Dusten Dennis
920 Cayuga St
Santa Cruz CA 95062
30.61 From: Lee Taiz
To: City Council
Subject: redwood tree on Walnut street
Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 12:11:39 PM
Dear City council,
The Redwood tree on Walnut street shouldn’t be cut down. It’s doing a good job for the environment.
Lee Taiz
Flora Unveiled
The Discovery and Denial of Sex in Plants
Lincoln Taiz and Lee Taiz
Available through all good bookshops, or direct from Oxford University Press
30.62 From: Renee Flower
To: City Council
Cc: Renée Beville Flower
Subject: Agenda of January 9, 2024: Item #30. Tree Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue Date: Thursday, January 4, 2024 10:08:13 PM
To: Santa Cruz City Council
Re: City Council Agenda, Regular Meeting, January 9, 2024 Agenda item 30. Tree Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue
In relation to the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval of tree removal permit application TR23-0089 to remove one coast redwood tree located at 339 Walnut Avenue, I am providing evidence that the redwood tree at that location likely did not predate the apartment building on the corner of Walnut Avenue and Lincoln Street.
A comment on a social media post about the proposed tree removal asked the question, “...which came first, the tree or the building?” An aerial photo shot in 1953 shows the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Lincoln Street adjacent to Santa Cruz High School. At that time there were no trees or buildings on the property which is today's 339 Walnut Avenue. The Santa Cruz County Tax Assessor's “year built” date for 339 Walnut Avenue is 1959. Therefore, based on the aerial photo (1953) and the year built date (1959), the large redwood tree located on the corner of Walnut and Lincoln in January 2024 likely did not exist at its present height and circumference prior to construction of the apartment building. If the tree was planted soon after the photo was shot in 1953, it could not have attained the stature of an “old growth” redwood tree prior to the construction of the apartment building at 339 Walnut Avenue in 1959.
I’ve enjoyed the presence of that redwood tree during my 50 years of residence in Santa Cruz, but I support its removal to protect the apartment building and other infrastructure from further damage.
— Renée Flower
Santa Cruz, California
(Attached photo and photo detail show the intersection of Walnut and Lincoln) Title: Santa Cruz High School Area [Aerial View]
Date Created: 1953
Access Rights: Public
Santa Cruz County Historic Photograph Collection
McHenry Library, Special Collections
University of California, Santa Cruz
1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California, 95064
Photo is available at this link:
https://digitalcollections.library.ucsc.edu/concern/works/3484zj77h
30.63 —————————
—————————
30.64 From: Garrett
To: City Council
Subject: 1.9.23 Agenda Item # 30 Redwood tree removal
Date: Friday, January 5, 2024 10:25:52 AM
1.9.23 Agenda Item # 30 Redwood tree removal
Dear Council,
Enough already. Adoptive grievance mongering here has reached new heights on this tree hugger issue.
Redwoods are not endangered. Many are lost all the time.
This is a private property issue.
Sometimes trees grow beyond the size the property can accommodate safely without damaging other property.
Chop already.
I understand Redwood trees are quite valuable, more valuable than many hardwoods except for woods like tropical woods or walnut.
Perhaps the owner, if they sold the tree, and net proceeds were forthcoming after removal and sale, could donate the net proceeds to tree planting as a gesture of community unity. Just an idea. I wonder if it's value as wood has been appraised? Garrett Philipp
30.65 From: Judi Grunstra
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 30 - Tree appeal
Date: Saturday, January 6, 2024 5:31:57 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Please uphold the appeal and allow more time for the out-of-state property owner to find a lower-cost alternative to concrete as a way of improving the safety of the sidewalk/street. So many of our supposedly protected Heritage Trees are being cut down, to the detriment of our community. Our "urban forest" is being decimated, with no end in sight, as new developments are proposed and approved.
Thank you.
Judi Grunstra
30.66 From: Renee Flower
To: City Council
Cc: Renée Beville Flower
Subject: Agenda of January 9, 2024: Item #30. Tree Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue Date: Sunday, January 7, 2024 7:20:19 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-01-07 at 4.08.14 PM.png
To: Mayor Keeley and Santa Cruz City Council
Re: City Council Agenda, Regular Meeting, January 9, 2024 Agenda item 30. Tree Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue
From: Renée Flower, resident of Santa Cruz since 1973
In relation to the Parks and Recreation Commission’s approval of tree removal permit application TR23-0089 to remove one coast redwood tree located at 339 Walnut Avenue, I am providing evidence that the redwood tree at that location did not predate the apartment building on the corner of Walnut Avenue and Lincoln Street.
The apartment building located at 339 Walnut Avenue has a year built date of 1959 according to Santa Cruz County Tax Assessor’s data.
An aerial photo confirms that the redwood tree at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Lincoln Street did not exist in 1963.
It is unfortunate that a redwood tree was planted in an area that is much too narrow (a few feet between a sidewalk and a building) and has resulted in damage to public infrastructure and an apartment building. I support removal of the tree.
Here's the link to the 1963 aerial photo:
Title : 1963-E Santa Cruz County Flight CJA 2DD-147
Date Created: 1963
Source: https://digitalcollections.library.ucsc.edu/concern/parent/s4655m883/works/m326m6138 Detail from the 1963 aerial photo showing Santa Cruz High School and the apartment building located at the corner of Walnut Avenue and Lincoln Street:
———————————————
30.67 From: rebecca bogdan
To: City Council
Subject: Save the Lincoln Walnut Redwood!!!
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 12:01:43 PM
Please spare this tree. It may be the largest redwood in Santa Cruz. It was there before the building, before the sidewalk. There are more workarounds and fixes that can be done than cutting down a tree that is creating an urban forest, contributing to a healthy ecosystem, and making good on Santa Cruz' claim to being a tree city. The city currently cuts down 30 heritage trees monthly, contributing to global warming, urban desertification and climate destruction. It's time to take a more studied approach to urban development than progress at any cost, profits to the highest bidder, scraps to the working class, and damn the environment. You have a public charge to do better and serve this community. Thank you, Rebecca Bogdan, resident.
30.68 From: alison buchter
To: City Council
Subject: Save the Sequoias/Redwoods
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:17:08 PM
Please save the downtown Redwoods, and Sequoias as heritage trees.
They are so important!!
Thank you very much,
Alicia, Isabella, Stephen and Alison Buchter
30.69 From: Joe Hanagan
To: City Council
Subject: The redwood try on walnut street
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:33:05 PM
Ive grown up in santa cruz my whole life, and went to highschool at santa cruz high. That tree has been there longer than any of us, and we shouldnt cut it down. Its a part of our small town cultural experience Sent from my iPhone
30.70 From: Isabel Whittaker-Walker
To: City Council
Subject: Save the heritage redwood on Walnut Ave
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:36:46 PM
I am emailing to express I do not want the heritage redwood on Walnut Ave to be removed by the city of Santa Cruz.
The redwood is older than the sidewalk, older than the apartment building it is "disrupting".
The city of Santa Cruz has not demonstrated sufficient evidence for the removal of this heritage tree.
-Isabel Whittaker-Walker
--
Isabel Whittaker-Walker | she/her
30.71 From: Bob Morgan
To: City Council
Cc: Renee Golder; Sandy Brown; Sonja Brunner; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; Fred Keeley Subject: Item 30, 1/9; tree removal
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:39:56 PM
Dear Council Members,
I alerted Ms, Bush at 1:39 pm on Monday, 1/8/24 that numerous support documents were not accessible from the agenda packet website. The entire agenda packet was taken off line by 1:45 pm.
I urge the council to allow more time for further assessment to determine whether to remove the redwood at the corner of Lincoln and Walnut. It is clear that:
This indigenous redwood tree is a community asset and has been an integral part of the neighborhood during its long life.
The out-of-state owners did not do due diligence when they bought the property--they did not investigate the potential threat the tree could pose to their structure; they did not begin systematic preventative maintenance so that the root system could be better managed. These oversights beg the question: why would property owners make an investment purchase without studying the potential damage of a redwood tree growing near their structure. Why would they not mitigate damage as the tree was growing? This neglect was irresponsible, now remedied by the proposed abrupt and irreversible removal of this natural urban asset.
The 2nd Arborist's report (I'm unable to properly reference it because the agenda packet has been removed) cited the need for a 'radar' ground assessment of the root system. The equipment the arborist used was not effective to properly assess the roots. In addition, debris impeded his equipment. It had not been cleared away in order for the arborist to make a definitive evaluation of the root system. Why was the ground around the tree not cleared prior to the the arborist's visit to the tree?
In a short period of time, during the fall and holiday season, the petitioners have mobilized many concerned citizens about the fate of the tree. The tree's future has attracted interest from local media. It is an easy thing to allow the petitioners and community more time to investigate mitigations that will preserve the tree and the property owner's structure. For example, state urban forest grants could be solicited to defray city and property owner costs in the tree's preservation and structure's renovations.
This tree has been alive and enriching our community longer than anyone participating in this issue. Why not give community members more time to help keep it alive? Please extend to the petitioners and community more time before making your decision to forever remove this tree.
Respectfully,
Bob Morgan
30.72 From: Laura Tate
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Tree Permit Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue (PR)
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 2:40:52 PM
Jan. 8, 2024
Re: Tree Permit Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue
City Council Meeting Scheduled for 1/9/2024
Att: Santa Cruz City Council
To the Esteemed Members of the Santa Cruz City Council, I am writing to express my ardent support for the preservation of the magnificent redwood tree at 339 Walnut Avenue and urge you to overturn the recent approval of its removal permit (Appeal 339 Walnut Avenue). While I understand the concerns regarding the adjacent apartment building and sidewalk, I believe solutions can be found that prioritize both responsible development and environmental stewardship.
Redwood trees are ecological giants, holding immense value for our planet and our community. Their towering presence graces our city, offering beauty, shade, and a tangible connection to our ancient past. Moreover, they excel in capturing and storing carbon dioxide, a crucial weapon in our fight against climate change.
Every redwood lost represents a significant setback in our efforts to mitigate this global crisis.
According to the Sempervirens fund, “Climate change is already affecting the Santa Cruz mountains: Average temperatures in the region have gone up 2°F in just the past half century”.
When redwoods are cut down, burned, or degraded by human actions, they release their stored carbon back into the atmosphere much faster. And they can no longer transform CO2 into the oxygen we breathe. This has twice the impact for the growing imbalance in the world’s carbon cycle and the climate’s stability." The specific tree at 339 Walnut Avenue is not merely a specimen, but a sentinel.
Its removal cannot be easily compensated by planting three smaller trees. It would take centuries for replacements to reach its majestic stature and replicate its
30.73 environmental contributions.
Furthermore, protecting existing trees, especially giants like our beloved redwood, should be a pillar of responsible development. Santa Cruz has the potential to become a leader in demonstrating how economic progress and environmental protection can coexist. By finding creative solutions to coexist with this magnificent tree, you can showcase a path for other communities to follow and set a precedent for prioritizing a healthy planet alongside urban growth.
I urge you to consider alternative solutions that address the concerns surrounding the building and sidewalk without resorting to sacrificing this irreplaceable natural treasure. Explore creative engineering solutions, perhaps involving micro-piling or adjustments to the building plans. Remember, the value of this redwood extends far beyond the immediate property line; it belongs to our entire community and future generations.
Let us not be the generation that remembers Santa Cruz for what it lost, but one that celebrates its enduring commitment to protecting its natural heritage and embracing sustainable development.Upholding the appeal and preserving the 339 Walnut Avenue redwood will send a powerful message: Santa Cruz stands for a future where the beauty of nature and the needs of development exist in harmony.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Laura Tate
Santa Cruz County Citizen
323-205-6436
30.74 From: Pete Shanks
To: City Council
Subject: Redwood at Walnut & Lincoln
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:21:46 PM
To: The Santa Cruz City Council:
The redwood — the pair of entwined redwoods — at the corner of Walnut and Lincoln is magnificent. The sidewalk is currently a mess. There are several possible ways to fix the sidewalk for pedestrians, and to ensure the safety of the nearby building. Killing that tree would be an act of shortsighted vandalism.
The city is rightly proud of our natural habitat. Not just the parks and beaches but the bushes and trees all over the city, which not only serve to remind us of the natural environment within which we have carved out a space to live but actually make the city what it is. The council are stewards, responsible for passing on the city to following generations. We should be glad to have that redwood.
Pete Shanks
410 Dakota Avenue
30.75 From: Keelan Franzen
To: City Council
Cc: Fred Keeley; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Reports and Information for council meeting 01/09 Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 3:37:11 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2024-01-07 at 7.48.55 PM.png
2024.01.08 - 339 Walnut foundation letter - Casc Eng - final.pdf Cole Rodgers for TR23-0089-2.pdf
Observation Letter 339 Walnut-3.pdf
Sidewalk and Roots- Mitigating the Conflict.pdf
Redwood Tree Appeal Letter_.pdf
644 Coast Redwood heritage tree California - REPORT-3.pdf WalnutAve_RedwoodRemoval_PeerReview_1.7.24X.pdf
Hello,
Linked in this message are all of our reports collected over the past 90 days including:
2 arborist reports
2 structural engineer reports
1 letter from appellant and partner
1 letter from construction advocate
1 screenshot of gofundme page
1 report "Sidewalks and Roots: Mitigating the Conflict: by Gordon Mann accessed as a PDF and posted by MRSC
Additionally, here is the power point to be presented, please double check that the video is able to be viewed on your end.
Thanks!
Keelan and Annika
30.76 30.77
CASCADIA ENGINEERING, INC.
Santa Cruz Office
133 Pryce Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
David Bolger, PE - President
[email protected]
(510) 495 - 4494 (cell)
January 8, 2023
Keelan Franzen
340 Chestnut Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Re: Existing redwood tree at 339 Walnut Avenue
Dear Mr. Franzen:
I have visited the site of the subject project and made a visual observation of the structural conditions present at the exterior of the existing building at 339 Walnut Avenue, and I have reviewed the letter written by Jodi Collins, PE, addressed to Santa Cruz Property Management dated July 17, 2023, and the Arborist Report prepared by Donald Cox dated May 30, 2023.
In my site visit, some signs of distress in the existing foundation were observable, as mentioned in the Collins letter. Based on this observation, some remedial work at the existing foundation is warranted.
Of note, although the need for such work is apparent, it does not currently appear to be an emergency, which gives us some time, from a structural engineering perspective, to explore various methodologies for addressing the necessary repairs.
To that end, there are a variety of potentially reasonable means of mitigation for addressing the foundation's current condition that are worthy of exploration which may not include removing the existing mature redwood. Some options are listed below for your consideration:
Pier and grade beam system:
This would include the installation of a concrete pier at or near the southwest corner of the building, and potentially one more along the perimeter of the foundation along its south and west perimeter walls (so, three total piers). Such piers would be designed to reach down into firm soil or bedrock below (typically a depth on the order of 15 - 20 feet is recommended) to provide the building with stability at those locations. Once such piers are installed, concrete grade beams would be run between them to bring the existing building's loads to each pier. This solution would support the existing building while not relying on the soil immediately below its walls, reducing or eliminating the impact of the redwood roots' development.
Cantilevered floor system:
This would entail the installation of a new line of bearing with a concrete footing set back from the perimeter wall in the existing crawlspace, which would allow the joists to support the floor above without needing to rest on a support at the existing perimeter.
This option may also require the installation of new floor joists alongside the existing
30.78 30.79
January 7th, 2023
Cole Rodgers Carpentry and Landscaping
(805) 540-8389
[email protected]
To whom it may concern,
My name is Cole Rogers. I am the owner of Cole Carpentry and Landscape Design. I was given information regarding the Redwood tree on 339 Walnut Avenue, and was asked by Annika Mancini to detail the possibility of creating an ADA accessible pathway to cross tree roots.
In addition to owning a landscape construction company I’m also a wheelchair user and familiar with accessibility and ADA, from a very personal standpoint. I would like to propose a wooden walking path that would be raised above the sidewalk that would alleviate the need to remove the redwood tree. This pathway would exist over the current walkway and be constructed with concrete pier blocks, wooden joists, a possible steel beam, reinforcement underneath, and wooden or composite decking. This walkway could utilize a handrail or slope side, depending on height to maintain safety and accessibility. The walkway would be constructed so that changes in the ground could be compensated for overtime.
The only existing edit that would need to be made in order to complete this project is moving the fire hydrant for safety and access. Still, it could likely be built in under the current estimate to replace the sidewalk with another round of cement.
Please consider this option when weighing the decision to remove this tree.
Thank you
Cole Rodgers
30.80 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
To: Mr. Keelan Franzen
340 Chestnut Street, Santa Cruz Ca 95060
Tel: 831 454-6123
email: [email protected]
Dear Mr. Franzen, at your request I conducted a reconnaissance site visit to assess site conditions at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Lincoln Street (339 Walnut), as shown on the attached Map; on Nov. 29, 2023.
The issue is wether to, or not to, remove a large redwood tree. In general field observations, described later in this letter report, tend to show the apartment complex foundation is seemingly not being adversely effected by the large Redwood tree.
The scenario has many natural and man made variables. My overall assessment, is that it would be very useful to remove the broken concrete, that would have to be removed as part of a repair anyway, so as to be able to better observe what is actually happening. Hand excavation could be conducted to investigate further, such as hand augering after, with, the pavement removed.
Also, the City could, after investigation, do a temporary repair to make the sidewalk(s) walkable and to prevent further erosion under the existing (OK) sidewalk areas.
As shown on the following picture the general area seems to be cuts into the native slope on the opposite side of Walnut from the Redwood tree, with the possibility that fill was placed under part of the roadway for Walnut and Lincoln. It is not obvious wether the apartment complex and 339 is on a cut into the slopes at the site, or possibly on fill at the corner of the complex closest to the Redwood tree, but it appears possible that a cut was made to construct the apartment complex.
The Redwood tree almost certainly predates (is older than) the existence of the City of Santa Cruz.
In general the sidewalk’s along Walnut and Lincoln, on the 339 Walnut side of the roads show settlement in some areas, with seemingly both settlement and uplift next to the redwood tree. 1 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.81 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
2 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.82 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
Apartment Complex 339 Walnut, with Redwood tree behind the signpost attached to a lamppost.
Santa Cruz High School, as seen from coned area from 339 Walnut side of street. 3 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.83 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
Within the coned area, sidewalk pavement has been uplifted probably by the Redwood tree’s root, ass much as 4 to 6-inches between the tree and a fire hydrant. Also, the pavement seems to have settled (1/2 to 1-inch) due to erosion possibly under the lamppost at the corner of the intersection, and also under several areas of the sidewalks nearby. 4 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.84 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
(Description of picture below) - Redwood tree root (root-beer-colored bark shown in picture under concrete), about 2 to 3-inch dimeter, as shown under area of sidewalk at location of largest sidewalk upward-offset.
5 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.85 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
Based on visual observations of pavement settlement and uplift, generally the sidewalks are subject to settlement, but immediately next to Redwood tree uplift has occurred.
The apartment complex appears to be on a cut, with the redwood tree in close proximity to the complex’s foundation.
6 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.86 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
There is a brick facade at the base of the complex that has been pushed in locally next to the Redwood tree. It appears that the base of the tree was cut back to prevent such pushing contact between the tree and the facade. If that is the case, the cutting-the-base-of-the tree-back work was done a long time ago as the bark has healed completely leaving a fully bark covered, somewhat squared-off face at the base.
The 339 Walnut apartment complex does not appear to be have been uplifted as there is a band of horizontal wood siding (extending continuously the full length of the building with a vertical height of about 3-feet up the wall )above the brick facade (with the individual each pieces of siding being about 6-inches tall and running typically more than 8-feet in length. As observed on The siding boards run uniformly horizontally, without gaps, or separation, or offset, including at the area next to the Redwood tree; where the brick facade has pushed the brick face inward (into the building footprint. As observed on Nov. 29, 2023, my current visual observation (from the exterior of the building) is that there is no obvious disturbance of the siding that would be expected if there was or is vertical uplift of the building foundation by the Redwood tree root.
In my experience Redwood trees are very aware of moisture…. — Where there is moisture a redwood tree will grow roots in that directions; — Where there is no moisture such as under a building a redwood doesn’t grow roots in that direction.
—My experience is limited. Perhaps because redwood roots do not often cause problems for building foundations?
As written at the beginning of the letter, the easiest way to get useful additional information is to remove the broken pavement in the area of the Redwood tree to allow for observation and possibly limited subsurface investigation.
Yours Sincerely, Marc Ritson
PE, RCE #37100
7 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.87 SOIL WATER
PLANTS PEOPLE
TERRA Dec. 4, 2023
FIRMA
Engineering
& Science
8 of 7
TEL (831) 438-3216
755 Weston Road • Scotts Valley • California • 95066
e-mail [email protected]
30.88 Sidewalk and Roots: Mitigating the Conflict—An Overview by Gordon Mann, Consulting Arborist, Mann Made Resources, Auburn, California The scope of the sidewalk and tree conflict is very large. In the U.S., the cost of repairing sidewalks characterized as being damaged by trees is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. In California alone, the extent of damage has been reported at $70 million by the Center for Urban Forest Research.
This article offers an overview of ways to improve the relationship and longevity of trees growing near sidewalks, streets, and driveways. Although written with the focus on the public right-of-way, the information is applicable to private property and new developments. During the discussion of sidewalks, most of the space relationships can be applicable to driveways and curb and gutter. Some applications cannot be applicable to curb and gutter because of the critical need to maintain a flow line.
Trees are valuable urban infrastructure that provides many benefits to people. Larger trees provide greater benefits than small trees. Removing and replacing a large tree with a small tree will maintain tree counts, but not maintain the same level of benefits.
Therefore, whenever possible, we try to retain the existing larger trees while making a repair or create better space for larger trees in the future.
Trees need to be healthy and have a healthy growing root system. The mature size of the tree needs to be considered when a tree is planted because it will grow much larger than the nursery stock size. The size and depth of the root system also needs to be considered because most plans show the tree as a small circle that doesn’t account for the root system.
Causes of the Conflict
There are many causes of damage to sidewalks besides trees. I will focus on two causes of the conflicts between trees and sidewalks:
oTrunk flare damage where the actual trunk of the tree lifts the sidewalk oRoot damage where a root emanating from the tree has caused damage to the sidewalk
The cause of trunk flare damage is a lack of space. The sidewalk is actually in contact with and lifted or offset by the enlarging tree trunk. Increasing the distance between the tree and sidewalk is the optimum way to perform the trunk flare damage sidewalk repair while retaining the tree. There are no opportunities to root-prune in this situation and put the sidewalk back in the same location. If the decision is to remove the tree, unless the site design is modified or a much smaller size-classification tree is planted, the same damage should be expected in the future.
The causes of root damage vary from shallow and surface roots in contact with the sidewalk to the radial growth increase of deeper roots causing sidewalk displacement.
Sometimes the offending shallow or surface roots may be pruned. Relocating, narrowing, or modifying the sidewalk materials can reduce the need to root-prune.
Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.89 New construction materials and site re-design design can provide ample space for the two infrastructure elements (tree and sidewalk) to co-exist. However, existing retrofit sites may not have the necessary space to allow for re-design that increases the distance between the tree trunk and the sidewalk. We will look at a range of options for replacing damaged sidewalks while either retaining the existing tree, or improving the design for the next tree.
Decisions, Solutions, and Innovations
In mitigating sidewalk-tree root conflicts, the decision to retain the tree will either be tree removal avoidance or tree preservation. The tree removal avoidance approach focuses on the repair process and does some damage to the tree. The intent is to maintain tree stability and avoid unplanned tree failure. Tree decline or death of the tree, although not desirable, can be managed. Tree removal avoidance typically involves root pruning and soil grading—typically, cutting roots more severely than accepted standards in lieu of tree removal. The tree may often decline or shed branches in response to the root loss.
The tree preservation approach focuses on protecting the tree for maintaining the health, condition, and longevity. The intent is to avoid injury or decline to the tree, and avoid damage to the site that can cause decline or injury to the tree. An example of tree preservation is relocating the sidewalk and minimizing excavation into the root area while completing the repair. Tree preservation also includes trenching around roots and avoiding soil compaction.
The choice of sidewalk material is a major consideration in retrofitting and designing sidewalks adjacent to trees. The disadvantage of a rigid material such as concrete is that one lift point pries and raises an entire section, causing the section to be cantilevered, and offset. This can create an edge step separation greater than the actual root lift.
Alternatives to concrete offer the benefits of less excavation, reduced root pruning, increased porosity, and the ability to allow roots to exist in the base material.
The disadvantage with materials that require an edge border for support is that the rigid edge can be raised and cantilevered in a fashion similar to concrete. Edge borders include the footings on tree grates and side forms on brick, interlocking pavers, decomposed granite, gravel, and rubber panels.
Re-usable materials offer the ability to repair future damage and re-using the same materials. This reduces the future materials costs during subsequent repairs or maintenance. Additionally, from a sustainability perspective, there may less material going to the landfill. Another advantage of re-usable materials is that site appearance remains more consistent over time.
Following are different sidewalk materials in common use at the time of this writing, some of their primary benefits and some of their weaknesses. All materials can be ADA compliant if designed/installed properly.
Concrete - On the plus side, this accepted standard material is solid, doesn’t need an edge treatment, and can be permeable, reinforced, tinted, textured, and shaped and Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.90 formed into curves around trees. It also can be leveled by slab jacking settled areas and grinding raised edges. On the minus side, it is rigid and not reusable, is usually not permeable, and depending on soil conditions and building codes may require a 4-inchthick compacted base beneath 4-inch-thick sections. Roots are not allowed in the base material. This often means removal of roots, impacting tree health and stability.
Asphalt - On the plus side, it is low in cost, thinner than concrete, and easily paved, shaped, and repaired. It should not need an edge form to remain in place after paving. It can be coated with a cement dust that absorbs oils and helps the surface color to be more gray reducing heat absorption. It can also be stamped and coated with color. Asphalt doesn’t require a thick base when used for a walking surface. It can be placed over roots and can be permeable. The roots can remain in the base material as long as they do not contact the asphalt layer. Future repairs may only require sawcutting the failed smaller area around the root and patching with more asphalt. Additionally, asphalt can be used as a ramping or topping (skin patching) material to alleviate a raised/offset concrete area, though ramping patches don’t last long in regions that experience harsh winter with freeze and thaw cycles. On the down side, Asphalt can heat up in sun and become soft, it has a shorter lifespan than concrete, it is not reusable, and its appearance is not always desirable.
Tree Grates - Tree grates provide space around the tree as long as the grate opening doesn’t cut into the trunk or trunk flare as the trees grow larger in girth. The opening can be enlarged by cutting the grate material but many cities fail to keep up with this requirement. Additionally, cutting the steel can rarely be completed on site. The grates offer permeability. On the downside, the grates must sit in a concrete footing. If the grate is 4 or 5 feet square, the space between the footing and trunk and roots is inadequate, and the grate frame is the first object to be lifted. Grates and installation are one of the most expensive treatments. If larger grates are used, 6’ square, or 6’ X 8’ or 10’, the soil area between the tree and the concrete frame footing may be adequate for long term growth, although larger grates are more expensive.
Bricks over Sand – On the plus side, bricks are a common material, mid-range in cost, and have many colors. They can be placed over roots, shaped or curved, and are reusable. Bricks are considered more attractive than some treatments. There is permeability in the seams between the bricks. On the minus side, bricks require a rigid side form (wood or concrete), which can be lifted and cantilevered by roots. Bricks don’t interlock, so individual bricks can be offset and not level. It is mid-range on the thickness scale.
Interlocking Pavers – On the plus side, pavers are flexible, reusable, shape-able, and decorative, typically installed on a sand base that can be placed over roots. Pavers have permeability in the seams between the pavers. A disadvantage is that they need a concrete or rigid edge band on all sides to hold them in place and this band can be lifted by tree roots. They are mid to upper level on the thickness scale. Also, interlocking pavers usually require higher maintenance to keep them looking attractive.
Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.91 Decomposed Granite, aka Fine Rock Dust -This material is low cost and maintained by adding more or by re-grading. A binder can be used to help keep it together. Its border can be shaped, it can be laid over roots, and it doesn’t need a deep base that can be placed over roots. On the minus side, it requires an edge band on the sides to hold it in place, and this band can be lifted by roots. Also, the surface needs more maintenance and it has the potential for dust to be tracked into homes and businesses. It can erode on slopes. The appearance may not be acceptable in some urban settings. This is mid to upper level on the thickness scale and once compacted is not very porous.
Rubber Panels - On the plus side, rubber panels are made from recycled materials and are flexible, thin (around 2 inches), and re-usable. They can be cut to shape around trees and can be placed directly over roots. The base material can be filled in around roots and graded prior to laying the rubber panels. The panels have permeability in the seams between the panels. Also, rubber panels can be manufactured to have different finish appearances. On the minus side, an edge treatment is needed and if the final grade undulates (as in rolling hills), its edges may not match perfectly. Another disadvantage is that most installations are not designed for vehicle traffic. This material is on the lower end of the thickness scale.
Plastic Panels – On the plus side, the plastic panels are made from recycled materials.
They have some flexibility, thin (around 2 inches), and re-usable. They can be cut to shape around trees and can be placed directly over roots. The base material can be filled in around roots and graded prior to laying the plastic panels. The panels have permeability in the seams between the panels. Also, plastic panels can be manufactured to have different finish appearances. The panels stake directly to the ground and do not require edge treatments. On the minus side, the panels expand and need to have accurate spacing between panels. The panels don’t dowel into adjacent concrete.
Poured-in-Place Rubber – On the plus side, forms for this material may be removed after the product cures and it can be poured over roots. Other advantages are that it can be shaped or curved, can be placed in thinner sections (2 inch), it doesn’t need a thick base, and can the top surface can be colored for enhanced appearance.
Disadvantages are that it is not reusable (no track record I am aware of), it is softer/more squishy than formed rubber panels (may be even softer in hotter climates), and its cost or contractor availability varies greatly by location. Another disadvantage is that most installations are not designed for vehicle traffic. This material is on the lower end of the thickness scale.
Polymer-Bonded Aggregate - This relatively new material consists of small aggregates of decorative stone that are glued together with a very viscous polymer which forms a bonded, porous walking surface. It doesn’t need rigid side forms or a thick base.
It can be shaped or curved and placed over roots. The forms are removed after the polymer cures. On the minus side, it is rigid—but repairs can be made by sawcutting and patching aggregate. As a material, it hasn’t been on the market long enough for long-term evaluation. This material is on the lower end of the thickness scale, although if designed for vehicle traffic, it may be thicker.
Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.92 Root Bridging - This approach creates a space between the sidewalk material and the existing tree roots while still meeting ADA standards. A slope is created using posts, piers, or arch supports; the sidewalk material is laid on the supports to leave a gap and space for the roots to grow without lifting the sidewalk. The big advantage of root bridging is that existing roots can be retained for health and stability. The bridging materials can vary, depending on height required, length of the repair area, and available budget. Common materials are wood, concrete, and composites. The main disadvantage of root bridging is that its design and construction is expensive. If the distance of the bridge is equal to a step (6 - 8 inches) above the side grade, a railing may be necessary for safety. Sometimes soil can be used to match the edge of the bridge and remove the stepoff potential.
Aggregate walkways - such as Nidagravel, have gravel set in cells over a base material.
It can be used for porous walkways and drives. Many different styles of aggregate can be used. Although the materials may be re-movable, they are on 4’ X 8’ cells and the sheets are overlapped making maintenance challenging. The gravel is placed about 1 inch above the cells, and they must have a raised edge (recommendation of up to 1”) to hold the gravel on top of the cells in place. There is no binder, but the aggregate is supported in the cells and is supposed to be stable, only requiring minimal maintenance.
Sunnyvale’s Steel Plates - An innovative method practiced for more than 15 years in Sunnyvale, California is to use steel plates to limit the future growth of the root towards the concrete improvement (see photo). Steel plates of 1/8” thickness are bolted on top of the root or placed on opposite sides of the root and bolted together, sandwiching the root.
Future root growth cannot push the steel apart—rather, the root flattens between the plates. Plates are placed under or adjacent to the sidewalk to strategically limit future radial growth. This technique is more expensive than root pruning and it takes time to perform the plate work. However, Sunnyvale has not had to return to these sites for root conflicts and the trees are more stable than if they were root pruned.
Going Forward
Innovative methods of administering a sidewalk repair program are needed to achieve longer living trees and fewer conflicts. The approaches will require a good education component to receive better engineer and property owner acceptance.
Some examples of interim and transitional approaches include:
a) Planting new trees farther from the curb than the sidewalk (not just placing the tree in the center of a narrow planting strip); Trees can be planted inside the edge of the sidewalk using a half-grate or other temporary material until the sidewalk can be moved over later.
b) Relocating sidewalks farther from the tree
c) Relocating curbs farther from the tree
d) Larger tree grate systems, moving the concrete footing farther from the tree e) Larger space around the tree/moving the concrete farther away in a downtown planting; the space can be filled with many of the materials listed above f) Removing the sidewalk on one side of a residential neighborhood street g) Obtaining easements to move sidewalks onto private property to provide more space for tree roots
Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.93 h) Constructing more root-proof sidewalks in lieu of the traditional 4 inches of concrete over soil
i) Installing the Sunnyvale steel plate system to limit root growth j) Designing new developments with larger planting space k) Sidewalk Maintenance Easements on private property
If we continue to design the sidewalk-tree interfaces the same as we have in the past, we will see the same sidewalk-tree root conflicts. Fortunately, there are options for communities to consider and achieve a higher level of success in protecting their tree infrastructure assets while enjoying pedestrian walkways. As more communities strive to create walkable, sustainable, shaded neighborhoods, we need to work with community designers, civil engineers, landscape architects, planners, and elected officials to modify current practices and adopt approaches that have a higher probability of long-term success.
Photographs:
Poured in place rubber Rubber Panel Installation Roots offsetting curb and gutter; note:
Sidewalk concrete edge band holding pavers
Roots raising sidewalk Decomposed Granite walkway Sunnyvale, CA steel plates over roots Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.94 Asphalt Sidewalk Selective root pruning, Concrete ring raised by roots Sunnyvale, CA Trunk is large enough the grate was
replaced with DG
Before: Damaged sidewalk After: Sidewalk opened up 6’ X 6’ tree grate by Monterey Pine around tree
2’ X 3’ tree grate Tree failed in storm; was root Tree grates used to plant tree in best and the Pruned location now, sidewalk will be moved next
to curb later
Arbor Day Foundation booklet Large roots under sidewalk and 3 different sidewalk treatments; move away Note the root system driveway from tree, move sidewalk next to curb, move both sidewalk and curb away
Posted by MRSC with Permission of Author
30.95 Redwood Tree Appeal Letter:
Permit TR23-0089
Keelan Franzen and Annika Mancini
340 Chestnut Street
831-454-6123
To the City Council,
Firstly, we want to thank you greatly for the opportunity provided to research mitigation solutions for the preservation of this sequoia sempervirens. We have learned so much in these past 90 days, and hope to continue learning more. After 3 months of researching, speaking with professionals, and the community, we have come to the conclusion that there are extensive mitigation opportunities available, in order to preserve the existing redwood tree, protect the foundation, and amend the sidewalk.
After thorough review of the supporting documents submitted by the Parks and Recreation, Jodi Collins, and Don Cox, we have a few thoughts we wanted to detail, in addition to defining our reports that we’ve separately collected. Please reference our report documents in their entirety, as they are simplified here.
Parks and Recreation, Potential mitigation measures and Agenda Report Details:
On September 26th, 2023, the council motioned to “Direct staff to conduct additional analysis and explore alternatives to tree removal, and to return to Council with potential mitigation measures, a cost estimate for sidewalk repair, and possible budget adjustment.” Presumably, the Agenda Report submitted by Parks and Recreation was the response to this motion.
Unfortunately, the Agenda Report seems to be lacking the desired collection of mitigation data that was motioned during the meeting on September 26th, 2023. As the Agenda Report states: “There is no way to mitigate this property damage.” You’ll note in this letter there are indeed ways to mitigate the damage, while saving the tree, options that were not explored by the Parks and Recreation department.
The findings that the Agenda Report details are based on reports done by three separate professionals. It utilizes the initial report done by the Urban Forester, Leslie Keedy, initial and secondary reports done by Professional Engineer Jodi Collins, as well as the initial and secondary report done by Consulting Arborist Don Cox, the latter two being hired by Santa Cruz Property Management. After a thorough reading of the
30.96 Agenda Report, we found that it does not seem to detail any other independent opinions, except that of the professionals specifically hired by Santa Cruz Property Management, and the initial report by Leslie Keedy.
Unfortunately, these reports easily hold implicit bias, as three of them were done before the motion was made (without clear intent of finding mitigation measures). The next two were done by professionals hired by Santa Cruz Property Management, not independently/city hired professionals. It is our belief that these reports do not aim to support mitigation measures, or to provide full, well rounded data collection in regards to exploring the preservation of this redwood tree.
In fact, none of these reports even touch on possible mitigation measures, nor were the professionals asked to do so. Don Cox states in his report that his assignment was to “Excavate soil with air-spade, between tree root crown and brick siding of apartment building as best possible, in order to inspect points of contact”, not to explore mitigation measures, but only points of contact. Jodi Collins’ report states the property management requested information regarding “... [exploring] replacing the foundation–if possible as proposed by the appellant, while keeping the existing footprint with discussion of associated cost if possible, to do this and draft a letter stating facts that there is no way to keep the building the same size and build alternative foundation types that could be used to protect the building from the growth of the tree as it grows bigger”. To reiterate; the property management specifically requested the engineer to state that there is no way to find any possible mitigation measures.
Utilizing the reports written by Jodi Collins and Don Cox as legitimate sources of mitigation data in the Parks and Recreation Agenda Report goes against the motion to analyze and explore alternatives to tree removal, and in fact is utilizing clearly biased reports leaning towards the removal of the tree. The reports collected by Santa Cruz Property Management and referenced in the Agenda Report deem mitigation “unavoidable” (Don Cox report, 5.30.23) and “unreasonable” (Jodi Collins report,
12.13.23). The Agenda Report claims, “There is no reasonable mitigation option to save the tree or prevent ongoing damage to the structural integrity of the building” but it seems as though the motion to analyze and explore alternatives was not even attempted.
Additionally, the Agenda Report leaves out imperative information from Don Cox in his secondary report. After Don Cox was requested to collect more information, he did so with an “air-spade” technique. The Agenda Report notes that Mr. Cox says there is definitive contact of the tree with the wall and states that “It is clear from this additional Arborist review that the redwood tree’s root system is the cause of the damage to the
30.97 building”. What the Agenda Report fails to mention, is that in Don Cox’s report, he specifically states, “The air-spade excavation was a poorly advised method for any conclusive inspection, due to the limitations of the equipment and the site characteristics. Further exploration would need to be done possibly with Ground Penetrating Radar.” The Agenda Report misrepresents the data collection from the “air-spade”, as Mr. Cox himself mitigates the conclusiveness of his own technique and states further investigation is required to confirm his assumptions.
Cost estimate for sidewalk repair:
As the motion asked, Public Works explored options of the sidewalk repair and has estimated this repair at $127,904.02. Though we value this estimate, we think it is important to mention that alternative methods of repair were sorely overlooked. With the preservation of the tree, the roots will indeed continue to grow. As noted by our arborist, root pruning/shaving is a possibility to mitigate the damage. Because of the root growth, Public Works should have explored the possibility of better suited materials to take into consideration, with the prospect of continued root expansion.
In the report written by our arborist, James P. Allen, as well as in “Sidewalk and Roots:
Mitigating the Conflict—An Overview” by Gordon Mann, sent in with our reports, there are listed many other materials that would be better suited than cement. Many of these materials are ADA compliant, and would provide opportunity for easy, inexpensive root pruning/shaving and easy replacement of material. Additionally, Cole Rodgers of Cole Carpentry and Landscape Design, and wheelchair user, wrote a quick report for us detailing the possibility of an ADA compliant boardwalk, a cheaper and easier to amend (in the case of root growth) alternative to cement. None of these materials were mentioned, or explored in the Agenda Report, but would be necessary to utilize if the tree were preserved in order to save money and time, in the future.
Sewer main:
The mention of the sewer main in the Agenda Report is certainly of concern, but gives the opportunity to replace the sewer line with root barriers, as detailed in Tino’s Plumbing estimate “...new line will connect with existing line with reinforced hub connections to prevent further root intrusion”. This maintenance would have needed to be done regardless, and it should be completed in a way that protects the newly replaced line from future root growth.
30.98 Possible budget adjustments:
The last detail in the motion by the council asked for “possible budget adjustment,” presumably to aid in the expenses of foundation and sidewalk amending. Unfortunately, the Agenda Report fails to mention this aspect, and in fact states, “FISCAL IMPACT:
None.” The Public Works department did not list the possibility of finding space in their budget to support the financial endeavors of pursuing mitigation measures, although it was asked of them.
The City of Santa Cruz was granted $1 million in funding through the USDA Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry Inflation Reduction Act Grant Program. Alex Padilla notes “As extreme temperatures…threaten the safety of workers and communities all across California, expanding access to shade and green spaces is more important than ever,” and that these critical grants “...will promote tree planting and maintenance and improve equitable access to greenery in urban neighborhoods.” Planting trees, and providing maintenance for existing trees, especially ones of this size, seems to be what this grant was expected to do. It could be an opportunity to allocate funds towards the preservation of this redwood tree.
In our fundraising efforts we raised over $4,300 of donations in the past 3 months, and were granted $1,300 from the local Sierra Club chapter. This truly was only the tip of the iceberg, as our outreach was limited due to our work schedule. Even with limited outreach, the community provided, and indeed wanted to provide. If there was the ability for people to donate funds philanthropically, we could support the property owners in mitigation efforts in a more substantial way. The city should want to provide that support, in order to encourage people to save their trees. Whether through public works budgeting, grants, other public funding, or philanthropy, we know there are possibilities. Our Go Fund Me contains $2,950 that we would like to donate towards construction costs.
Thoughts, Discussion, and Individual Reports:
After thoroughly reading all aforementioned reports from the city and Santa Cruz Property Management, we feel confident in stating that the motion to “Direct staff to conduct additional analysis and explore alternatives to tree removal, and to return to Council with potential mitigation measures, a cost estimate for sidewalk repair, and possible budget adjustment” was not sufficiently completed. We attempted to complete this motion to the best of our ability, considering our limited access. Our individual reports outline mitigation measures, alternative sidewalk materials, and note that pursuing this project is indeed possible.
30.99 Individual reports collected by Keelan Franzen and Annika Mancini:
As noted via email, the property owners declined to offer permission to access the premises. There was a question by Mary Barter (one of multiple property owners) via email where she stated: “...your activities: bringing photographers, creating social media, newspaper article, soliciting the Sierra Club, etc. etc., One has to wonder what it’s all for.” We would like to clarify what it is all for. It is for the tree, for all it provides, it is for us and our future generations (our children and their children!), and it is for you, Mary, so we can help with the financial burden we know you didn’t ask for. We have loved and appreciated the community members that have reached out to us (yes, the newspaper and the Sierra Club!), and getting to experience the reality of a community that cares.
To move on and address the real issue: Though our reports are formulated without full building access, they are deemed by our professionals to be considered very viable mitigation options. Please read these reports in their entirety, and note them as legitimate, individually hired professional reports, aimed at completing the motion made by the city council on September 26th, 2023.
Professional Engineering Report:
Our structural engineer, David Bolger of Cascadia Engineering, lists in detail, mitigation strategies that are:
Pier and grade beam system
Cantilever floor system
Retaining wall system
Additionally, Dave mentions the necessity for a wide scope of team members: “The various perspectives that each team member would bring to the discussion would shed light on which… of the above options are feasible and/or most appropriate for the situation. I also would anticipate such a group generating ideas not outlined here for further consideration, as often happens in conventional projects.” This is what the motion asked for: additional analysis and exploration of alternatives to tree removal with potential mitigation measures.
Arborist Reports:
30.100
Both Arborists we’ve received reports from, Monika Buczko, Consulting Master Arborist, and James P Allen, Consulting Arborist, have noted the position that there are mitigation options that have not been explored by the current reports.
Monika Buczko’s report states, “When considering removing any trees, thorough steps should take place to develop alternative solutions and consider the benefits that trees provide…..It is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of arboricultural certainty, that not all options and explorations have been utilized and/or analyzed. To make a decision whether the redwood removal is reasonable; further testing, data collection and analysis as mentioned in this report are necessary. Collaboration between an engineer and an arborist is crucial.”
James P Allen’s report says “ After my brief inspection of the site and review of the documents provided, it is my professional opinion that the removal of the subject coast redwood tree is not only unnecessary but unwarranted. Mitigation of the current damage observed by others is readily achievable. The potential for future damage to the building foundation, sewer line and sidewalk can be diminished through the implementation of preventive measures.”
Conclusion:
The professional reports collected by the appellant (Keelan Franzen), successfully found mitigation measures that should be taken into consideration, and implemented with the preservation of the redwood tree.
The desired final effect of this letter is to outline the fact that this motion to proceed was not thoroughly and ethically explored by the Parks and Recreation Department, nor by the property management. For the Agenda Report to effectively explore mitigation options, there should have been unbiased, independently hired professionals, explicitly given the task of finding solutions, which was not actualized in the Agenda Report, Don Cox’s reports, or Jodi Collins reports. The unfortunate reality is that time and resources have gone to waste in the last 3 months in the collection of “data” for this meeting, which was indeed, just to set it up for failure.
Please note, our professional reports and mitigation measures demonstrate that proceeding with the protection of this redwood tree truly is possible.
Thank you,
30.101
Keelan Franzen and Annika Mancini
30.102
Monika Buczko, RCA #785, BCMA PD-2392B, CTSP
Redwood Consulting Arborists, LLC
Warminster PA 18974
(267)663-3338
Redwoodarborists.com
[email protected]
Consultation #644
December 25, 2023
Client:
Name: Annika Mancini
Address: 340 Chestnut St, Santa Cruz CA 95060
Ph#: 805-440-8855
Email: [email protected]
Re: Save The Downtown Santa Cruz Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Dear Ms. Mancini,
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the above-captioned matter. The Coast redwood is located at 339 Walnut Ave (Walnut and Lincoln St) in Santa Cruz, CA. In May 2023, the city posted a heritage tree removal sign on the twin trunks of the redwood. The tree is in close proximity to a building and a sidewalk. It is alleged that the tree roots are causing damages to the sidewalk and the building foundation. A City Council meeting occurred on September 26, 2023 and granted 90 days to collect more data and explore options to determine if the tree can be saved.
An engineer and an arborist reports were presented and reviewed at the City Council meeting.
I was asked to review the meeting notes and the reports; and determine/opine whether and if all options were considered to prevent the removal of the redwood.
To assist my investigation, I reviewed the following materials:
- City Council Agenda Report
- Heritage tree removal/alteration permit application
- Photographs attached in the agenda
- Heritage tree/shrub evaluation form
- Notice of Action – Heritage tree alteration/removal/relocation tentative permit - Appeal to the City Council
- Jodi Collins, PE (Engineer) report
- Donald Cox (Arborist) report
- Testimonials
30.103
December 25, 2023
Document Review
The reasons for the tree removal stated were that it is causing a sidewalk to uplift and is located in close proximity to the building, specifically; the redwood is less than one foot from the building foundation, the root system is in contact with the foundation causing cracking, and a fire hydrant could be compromised in the future.
Structural Assessment Report
A Professional Engineer Jodi Collins Henry stated that the redwood has already caused a minor structural damage and as it grows, it will cause substantial structural damage to the building.
However, tree roots are not strong enough to penetrate foundations; the roots can enter EXISTING cracks and as they grow possibly enlarge the existing cracks. In her observations she identifies the damages (ex. damaged brick veneer, cracking in the brick veneer, wall had a slight inward bow and two cracks in the stem wall). Her observations are not supported by any scientific data and/or findings that should be included in the report. The report should address and answer following questions:
- Was a root excavation performed to locate the roots and proximity to the structure? - Was GPR (Ground Penetrating Radar) utilized to locate the roots? - Was the age of the building considered as possible cause for the minor structural issues? - Was the rest of the building inspected to determine if cracks and other issues are evident in other location to rule our material deterioration due to age and other elements? - Were weather elements considered as a contributor to the minor structural issues? - Was a soil test performed to determine the type of soil? What is the soil shrink-swell capacity? Could the soil be the contributor and cause of the foundation issues? Can a geotechnical engineer assess the soil?
- How was it determined that the tree caused the cracks in the stem wall? - Are there mitigation options to prevent the rot of the floor joists due to elevated soil such as excess soil removal or installing waterproof barrier? - Provide measurements of the distance of the roots and structure (the roots don’t appear to touch the wall in photos).
The report predicts future substantial structural damage to the foundation, however; doesn’t provide mitigation options.
- Can the current minor issues be repaired? Have all option been explored to perform the repairs?
- Is it necessary to prune or remove roots in order to perform these repairs? - Are there options to further support the foundation to prevent expanding roots creating a conflict with the structure?
- Can the structure be protected by installing root barrier?
30.104
December 25, 2023
- Can the structure be strengthened by various materials to prevent further damages? Arborist Report
Don Cox (arborist) refers to the BMPs for guidance regarding root pruning. BMPs are guidelines and are not always the only option or solution to a problem/concern. The BMPs allow for deviations from the guidelines and standards if necessary with careful consideration of the objectives and with supporting rationale. To determine if any root pruning would compromise the tree’s health and stability; other test and data should be gathered. An increment borer method should be completed to extract a section of the wood tissue to determine the root diameter growth per year (this method can be utilized to determine the trunk dimeter growth as well as to determine the tree age). Every tree is unique and not always is one formula applicable to all. He states that the tree removal is necessary due to proximity to the structures and is an obstacle for essential repairs. Have the repairs been communicated between the engineer and the arborist? The arborist states: “The size of a mature redwood was overlooked or ignored with this planting in a very small area of an intensely built environment. …. Now the “wrong tree – wrong place” principle has become evident”. The statement is not applicable in this situation. Based on research, it is very likely that the tree wasn’t planted after the structure was built. Based on the redwood age (approximate age can be calculated using the tree diameter, estimated age is 150- 200 years old) and aerial photos depicting the area before the building was constructed, the tree pre-dates the structure. Therefore the statement should be “wrong building – wrong place”. He also states that the tree is not sustainable and there is no space for future expansion without considering options to accommodate the tree growth. Have the options been considered? Can all options be listed in the report and collaborated between the engineer and the arborist? According to his assessment, the tree is healthy and structurally sound and the roots cannot be cut without causing severe physiological stress and destabilization of the entire tree. When assessing trees and considering if they are a good candidate for root pruning, the overall health should be assessed and considered. The roots abutting the building side are already compromised as they had to have been cut when the building was constructed. The tree remained stable since the building construction in 1959. Further assessment should be completed to determine the location, number and the size of the roots. Are there enough structural roots supporting the tree? Can any be removed and still maintain the structural integrity of the tree? Shaving the roots should also be considered as redwoods are extremely resistant to rot and decay. Tannins provide resistance to fungi and insects, as well as slow down the natural decay process of wood. The redwood has been thriving in its location all these years therefore the age and longevity of the building should be considered. Are there near future plans to remodel or demolish the building? Can the tree be preserved until then?
30.105
December 25, 2023
The arborist states: “risk of major damage to foundation of building and garage-floor structures within two to five years”. The statement is not supported by any scientific data or formulas as to how the estimate was concluded; but assuming that the statement is correct – then there are two to five years to develop and implement a solution and prevent any further damages.
Discussion
When considering removing any trees, thorough steps should take place to develop alternative solutions and consider the benefits that trees provide. These benefits cannot be substituted by any persons or technological advancements. Climate changes, high CO2 levels, urban heat island effect, are already a major concern and trees have an extraordinary ability to minimize this severe impact on our society. Trees are providing shelter and food to many animals, even in urban settings.
Removing problematic trees is rarely a solution. Redwood roots can expand up to 2 acres and are fairly shallow as most are located in the top three feet below soil surface. During the lifespan of a redwood, the roots may increase in diameter, possibly causing concerns and conflicts with infrastructure; however, when trees are removed and the stump is ground, the deep vertical and shallower horizontal roots remain. Over time, these roots begin a process of decomposition. As these roots become soft and brittle, air pockets are created. The empty spaces pose a risk of structural damages to buildings and foundations, cracks and shifting of sidewalks and roads, and soil erosion that can lead to further and significantly worse problems.
Along with the economic and ecological benefits, the redwood has an immense community value. The testimonials show how much this tree is valued and appreciated by the local community.
The ISA Best Management Practices (BMP)1 Root Management suggest to locate roots when assessing trees by using a probe, Ground-penetrating radar (GPR), soil excavation and root collar excavation. The BMP also states: “The consequences of root pruning have not been well studied.
Small diameter cuts and damage that is limited to rot sapwood are thought to compartmentalize well and do not usually lead to extensive decay. When larger roots are cut and heartwood is exposed, decay is more likely to develop”. Therefore a further investigation is necessary to locate the roots, measure the diameter, determine the area of sapwood vs. heartwood and decide which root pruning technique fits the best for the subject tree. Roots can also be shaved (up to 1/3 of the root diameter). Can the roots be shaved away from the building and a barrier is installed to prevent future root expansion?
1BMP 2017. Root Management, ISA, 63p.
30.106
December 25, 2023
The BMP includes options/solutions and provides guidance for issues caused by roots such as:
- Root pruning
- Root shaving
- Relocating sidewalks (redesign, replace etc.)
- Elevated sidewalks (bridge) with handrails or guiderails installation - Reinforcing concrete structures with rebar and other materials - Blocking and redirecting roots away from infrastructure A structural engineer and an arborist should collaborate, share data and findings, and explore all options. An engineer should develop plans to move the hydrant, relocate, fix or create an elevated sidewalk, support the foundation and present the options to an arborist. The arborist should consider the tree’s age, health, root location and sizes and determine which or if any options are reasonable and achievable.
Upon completion of collecting data and tests, a plan should be developed stating step-by-step procedures to implement the repairs etc. If the decision is to save the tree, such as make the repairs to the foundation, address the sidewalk problems and the hydrant relocation and if any roots need to be cut, removed or shaved; a Plant Health Care management plan should be developed to ensure the redwood’s survival, structural integrity and health. The redwood should be monitored for at least five years and the PHC may include but is not limited to: annual tree risk assessment, irrigation plan, soil and foliar sample testing and fertilizing if necessary, pest control, disease control etc.)
If desired, a tree appraisal can also assist in helping to make a decision whether the tree is to be removed or remain as trees often add a great value to the property.
Conclusions
It is my opinion, within a reasonable degree of arboricultural certainty, that not all options and explorations have been utilized and/or analyzed. To make a decision whether the redwood removal is reasonable; further testing, data collection and analysis as mentioned in this report are necessary. Collaboration between an engineer and an arborist is crucial. Only upon collection of the necessary data, a decision can be made whether a plan to accommodate and retain the heritage tree is reasonable.
30.107
December 25, 2023
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Redwood Consulting Arborists, LLC
1. Terms and Conditions. These terms and conditions (“Terms”), along with any proposal, statement of work, invoices, or similar document (“Sales Document”) provided by Redwood Consulting Arborists (“Arborist”) to the customer listed on the Sales Document (“Customer”) serve as the whole of the contract between the Customer and Arborist. The Terms and the Sales Documents shall be known further as the “Contract.” Any other terms or conditions set forth in any other document provided by Customer are rejected and shall be of no force or effect. The Contract can only be amended, supplemented, or altered by a written document executed by an authorized representative of Arborist. No oral promise or representation of Arborist or its employees or agents will override the terms of these Terms or the Contract. This agreement with take precedence over and supersede any prior oral promises or agreements prior to the date these terms were provided to Customer. Customer’s consent to the Contract and these Terms by allowing Arborist to start providing services, by paying the price for the service or any deposit or partial payment, or by executing these terms or any Sales Document containing these terms.
2. Work. Arborist agrees to provide the services attached to this document (the “Services”) in accordance with reasonable and prevailing standards of practice.
Besides the foregoing promise, Arborist makes no other representations or warranties of any nature whatsoever regarding its provision of the Services. Except as stated in the first sentence of this section, the Services are provided “as-is,” “where-is” and “with all faults.” No warranties are made regarding the suitability of the Services and any Work Product (defined below) for Customer’s specific needs or any other specific purpose. Unless limited by law, the maximum amount that Arborist, its owners, employees, and agents will be liable for under the Contract is the amount paid to the Arborist for the Services. Under no circumstances will Arborist be liable for special, punitive, consequential, incidental, or exemplary damages or damages for loss of use, lost revenue, or lost profits. Unless otherwise expressly set forth in writing, Arborist’s inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without dissection, excavation, probing, boring, or other invasive procedures and reflect the condition of those items and features at the time of inspection. The Services shall not obligate Arborist to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or attend court unless further contractual arrangements are made including the payment of additional fees. The Services shall not include reports on the condition of aspect of the property unless specifically requested by Customer.
Assessments are performed on subject trees as defined per customer and may not include certain parts of tree if not specified and/or other trees on Customer’s property. Upon delivery of the Work Product to Customer, Customer’s acceptance shall be presumed if customer does not provide a written objection within five (5) days of Customer’s receipt.
3. Assessment and Appraisal. Any appraisal made by Arborist assumes that Customer’s property is in full compliance with all applicable law and that Customer has good, marketable title to the property. Appraisals do not take into accounts liens or encumbrances on the property, and any property appraised is on the assumption that such property is free and clear or all liens or encumbrances. Reports, appraisals, and correspondence (“Work Product”) are confidential and remain at all times the property of Arborist, including any intellectual property rights arising under applicable law. Possession of Work Product confers no right to publish or use for any purpose without Arborist’s express permission. Loss, removal, or alteration or any part of the Work Product shall invalidate the Work Product. Any photographs, diagrams, charts, sketches, or other graphic material included in any report are intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural drawings or surveys unless expressly noted in the Work Product. Inclusion of the work product from a third party is intended solely for clarification, and Arborist makes no representations or warranties of any kind whatsoever regarding third-party work product. Reports and any appraisal values represent the opinion of the Arborist, and the Arborist’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
4. Price. The price set forth in Arborist’s Sales Documents (“Service Price”) does not include sales tax, government charges, permit fees, or similar costs (“Government Costs”). Customer is liable for all Government Costs connected to Arborist’s provision of the Services. Arborist reserves the right to require payment for the Services upfront, or to require a deposit or other prepayment of fees which will be applied to the total Service Price and not held in trust.
Arborist can hold any deposit in its operating account with its own funds unless prohibited by law. Arborist’s Service Price is not contingent on the reporting of any specified appraised value, a promised or stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
5. Payment. Payment shall be made in accordance with the Sales Document, but no later than fourteen (14) days after the completion of the Services. Any parts of the Service Price that remain due and owing beyond thirty (30) days of their respective due dates shall accrue interest at the lesser of ten percent (10%) or the maximum amount permitted by law. If Customer fails to pay the Service Price or any part of the Service Price when due, then Arborist reserves the right to cease work immediately without liability until such amounts are paid in full. Customer agrees to pay any and all reasonable attorney fees and court costs, including costs of appeal and costs of collection, arising from the efforts of Arborist pursuing payment of the Service Price. A written report (per Customer’s request) will be mailed or emailed within seven days after the assessment. The report includes a draft watermark which will be removed upon payment receipt.
Checks returned for insufficient funds or any other reason will be subject to a $30 service fee.
6. Changes. Any changes to the original scope of work set forth in the Sales Document are subject to a change in price and the project completion schedule.
Arborist reserves the right to change the scope of the Services due to environmental, weather, biological, geological causes as well as the causes due to the actions or omission of Customer. Any additional work, work time, or equipment needs required to complete the Contract caused by any reason, including the Customer's failure to complete his/her responsibilities herein, or caused by unforeseen conditions or conditions outside or beyond Arborist’s control, will be the responsibility of Customer and shall be paid for by the Customer on a time and material basis at Arborist’s customary rates or as required by any subcontractor of Arborist. These conditions may include, but are not limited to: insects, animals, harmful plants/fungi/organisms, Site access issues, police/traffic safety, additional work needed to access the Site or within the Site due to changes, foreign material in trees and stumps, and changed conditions within the Site after the date of the Sales Document.
7. Termination. Either party may terminate this Contract with ten (10) days’ notice; provided that, Arborist shall be paid for all costs incurred and fees earned up to the date of termination.
8. Customer Obligations.
a. Customer shall provide adequate access to the site on which the Services will be performed (the “Site”) to Arborist during the term of the Services.
Arborist reserves the right to charge a minimum visit charge of $350 in the event that Arborist cannot perform Services because Arborist cannot adequately access the Site.
b. Customer is responsible for ensuring that any underground utility lines or equipment are properly identified and marked prior to any digging conducted by Arborist, including, but not limited to, invisible fencing, irrigation, or landscape lighting. Arborist will not be responsible for any damage to unmarked underground utility lines or equipment.
c. Customer is responsible for the accuracy of all information provided by Customer to Arborist. Arborist will gather information from the Customer regarding past pruning, tree failures, change in topography, soil and turf treatments etc. Any false or withheld information by Customer will void the validity of assessment. Customer or Customer’s designated representative will promptly respond to requests for information and approvals from Arborist.
Customer will review and proofread all Sales Documents and information provided to Customer by Arborist and shall correct any errors. If Customer has approved a Sales Document and later finds errors, Customer shall incur the cost of correcting such errors. d. Customer shall comply with all laws and regulations as they relate to the services and obtain any necessary permits and approvals. e. Customer will ensure the Site is safe and free from dangerous conditions to enable Arborist to perform the Services. The Site shall include all areas used and to be used by Arborist in the performance of the work, including all areas needed for mobilization, access, ingress and egress.
30.108
December 25, 2023
f. Customer warrants that the Site is either: (1) located on the Customer's property; and/or (2) located on another's property and the Customer received authorization from the other property owner to enter into this Contract, to allow Arborist to perform the services and to conduct work on that property.
The Arborist assumes no responsibility for the verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information.
g. Customer is responsible for and shall obtain and pay for all required permits for Arborist to perform the services, unless Arborist has been contracted to do so this Contract. In the event Customer fails to obtain the proper permits, Customer shall be responsible for all fines, fees and/or delays associated with not obtaining permits.
h. Customer warrants that all trees/stumps listed or referred to in the Sales Documents, in any communication by Customer, and any change order are either:
(1) located on the Customer's property; and/or (2) Customer has authorization from the owner of the subject tree/stump to enter into this Contract and to allow Arborist to perform the Services. Should any tree/stump be mistakenly identified as to ownership, the Customer agrees to indemnify Arborist for any damages, fees or costs incurred as a result thereof pursuant to the indemnity provision herein.
9. Force Majeure. Arborist shall not be deemed in breach of this Contract if Arborist is unable to complete the Contract, Services, or any portion thereof by reason of fire, earthquake, labor dispute, act of God or public enemy, pandemic, death, illness, or incapacity or any local, state, federal, national or international law, governmental order or regulation or any event beyond Arborist’s control (collectively “Force Majeure Event”). Upon occurrence of a Force Majeure Event, Arborist shall give Customer notice of its inability to perform or of delay in completing the Services and shall propose revisions to the schedule for completion of the Services.
10. LIABILITY DISCLAIMER. THE FOLLOWING PROVISION IS A WAIVER OF LIABILITY, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY AS IT AFFECTS
YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS
Arborist is tree specialist who uses its education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of the trees and attempts to reduce the risk of living near trees. Customer may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the Arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborist cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure to a tree. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for a specific period of time. Remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree or risk, and the only way to eliminate all risk is to eliminate all trees. All assessment levels are subject to limitations such as inherent subjectivity and ambiguity and are always based on reasonable standards of professional judgement. Tree risk assessments are associated with a considerable level of uncertainty due to limited ability to predict natural forces and processes (load factors, extreme weather events, response growth, rate of decay progression, etc.). Arborist is not liable under any circumstances for the foregoing risks. Arborist’s assessments/evaluations are impartial and conclusions are based or relevant facts, analysis and observations.
TREES AND PLANTS ARE NATURAL, LIVING ORGANISMS AFFECTED BY FACTORS BEYOND HUMAN CONTROL. NO GUARANTEE ON
TREES, PLANTS, OR GENERAL LANDSCAPE SAFETY, HEALTH, OR CONDITION IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY THE TERMS OF THIS
CONTRACT OR ANY SALES DOCUMENT, AND ARBORIST SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM NATURALLY OCCURRING CONDITIONS ON THE SITE.
Customer is advised that any tree whether it has visible defects and concerns or not, will fail if the applied forces exceed the strength of the tree or its parts.
Arborist shall not be responsible for damages caused by any tree defects, and assumes no responsibility for the correct of defects or tree-related problems whether or such parts of the trees were inspected.
In no event will Arborist be responsible for loss of wages, loss of profits, or loss of enjoyment of any property. No warranty, representation or guarantee, expressed or implied, is intended by this agreement, arborists’ work includes on site and virtual consultations.
11. Insurance; Indemnity. Arborist possesses insurance that provides coverage in the event of injury to persons or property arising directly from the negligence of Arborist and/or its employees. Further, all of the employees of Arborist are covered by Worker's Compensation Insurance. Customer shall indemnify, defend, and hold Arborist harmless from and against any loss, liability, damage, or expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred or suffered by or threatened against Arborist in connection with or as a result of any claim brought by or on behalf of any third-party person or entity as a result of or in connection with Arborist’s association with Customer, Arborist’s provision of the Services, or Customer’s breach of any provision of this Contract (including any representation or warranty) except to the extent caused by Arborist’s gross negligence or willful misconduct.
12. Miscellaneous. All parties agree that should any term or condition stated be found to be invalid or unenforceable, such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted and then the remaining conditions and portions of conditions shall be held valid and enforced in full. This Contract will be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, without reference to its conflict of law principles and jurisdiction of any and all such disputes will lie in the state and federal courts sitting in or nearest Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Customer consents to personal jurisdiction in the state and federal courts located therein and hereby waives all defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non-conveniens. Arborist is an independent contractor, and nothing contained in this Contract shall be construed to (a) give either party the power to direct and control the day-to-day activities of the other, (b) constitute the parties as partners, joint venturers, co-owners, or otherwise, or (c) allow either party to create or assume any obligation on behalf of the other for any purpose whatsoever. The Contract may not be assigned by you without Arborist’s prior written consent; however, the Contract may be assigned by Arborist in its sole discretion. The failure of Arborist to exercise or enforce any right or provision hereunder shall not operate as a waiver of such right or provision. Any waiver must be in writing and signed by an authorized representative of Arborist.
13. Referrals: Any referrals provided by the Arborists’ are not a guarantee of a satisfactory work performed for the client and Redwood assumes no responsibility for the quality of the work or clients’ satisfaction. Redwood is in no way affiliated with referred companies beyond being familiar with their work.
14. Scope of Services.
Arborist performs a Level 2 assessment ( = visual assessment -walk around entire tree, may include collection of samples, sounding wood for cavities, root collar exploration)
Level 2 assessments are limited to visual inspection of the outer parts of trees. Arborists always use the best of their knowledge to assess and determine the health and risks associated with trees, however due to the limits of inspection; Arborist is not liable for any failures, damages or any other future concerning issues that could not have been observed during inspection. Level 3 assessment may be recommended if necessary to inspect the upper crown or root collar excavation.
Any samples collected for further exploration to determine if any diseases (pathogens such as insects, fungi, bacteria or viruses) are present, may require additional charges.
Unless otherwise stated, annual tree inspections are highly recommended. Trees are living organisms and due to the pathogen and weather element unpredictability, it is essential to periodically inspect trees, especially after extreme weather events. Even though trees may appear healthy, hidden factors such as internal decay or root rot that may not be visible can result in trees’ instability. Further assessment may be necessary and will be recommended if suspicion arises during assessment.
Arborist assesses trees by implementing a Level 2 assessment – Basic Assessment – and recommends mitigation options. Arborist follows generally accepted standard of care as defined in ISA’s Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment, applicable standards (ANSI – American National Standards
30.109
December 25, 2023
Institute), best management practices, qualifications and training courses. Tree owner/manager has a legal duty of care responsibility to decide and proceed with mitigation options.
BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT, CUSTOMER AGREES AND ACCEPTS ALL CONDITIONS FOR ANY FUTURE CONSULTATIONS. CUSTOMER WILL BE NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO SIGN A NEW DOCUMENT IN CASE ARBORIST MAKES ANY CHANGES TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
CUSTOMER SIGNATURE:
Date:
All rights reserved by, and document copyrighted by, Redwood Consulting Arborists, LLC. Copyright © 2023
30.110
December 25, 2023
Monika D. Buczko, RCA#785, BCMA PD-2392B, CTSP, TRAQ, TPAQ Consulting Master Arborist, Registered Consulting Arborist
Education______________________________________________________________ Associate in Arts – Special Education, MCCC in NJ, 2002 Phi Theta Kappa
Who Is Who Recognition Award for Leadership, 2001
Dean’s List
Certifications___________________________________________________________ ISA Certified Arborist, 2015-2019
TCIA Tree Care Specialist, 2015
TCIA PHCT - Plant Health Care Technician, 2016
TCIA Aerial Rescue Certification, 2016-2022
TCIA EHAP Certification – Electrical Hazards Awareness Program, 2016 TCIA Tree Care Safety Specialist, 2016
ISA TRAQ – Tree Risk Assessment Qualification, 2017
ISA BCMA - Board Certified Master Arborist, PD-2392B, 2019 TCIA CTSP - Certified TreeCare Safety Professional, 2021 ASCA – Consulting Academy Graduate, 2022
ASCA RCA – Registered Consulting Arborist #785, 2022
FAA – Small Unmanned Aircraft System (Drone) Remote Pilot Certificate, 2023 ASCA TPAQ – Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualification, 2023 Warminster PA 18974
Cell (267)663-3338
[email protected]
redwoodarborists.com
30.111
December 25, 2023
Monika D. Buczko Consulting Master Arborist Warminster PA (267)663-3338 _____________________________________________________________________________ Professional Affiliations__________________________________________________ ISA – International Society of Arboriculture
TCIA – Tree Care Industry Association
ASCA- American Society of Consulting Arborists
Tree Vitalize Tree Tenders
National Arbor Day Foundation
Recognitions____________________________________________________________ ISA feature article – Women in Arboriculture, 3/2020
ISA feature article – Earning ISA’s Highest Credential, 8/2020 Professional Experience___________________________________________________ ProClimb Tree Care – co-owner
Established in 2007 - 2022
Provide estimates, customer care, accounting
Tree evaluations and tree assessment, write reports, consultations Insect and Disease ID and management
Plant Health Care
Tree consultations for local community developments, swim clubs, schools and churches Training employees – work safety, rigging and tree removal techniques, pruning and planting
Redwood Consulting Arborists – owner
Established January 2021 – present
Diagnosis of tree and landscape problems
Insect and disease identification and management
Plant health care programs
Training and education
30.112
December 25, 2023
Monika D. Buczko Consulting Master Arborist Warminster PA (267)663-3338 _____________________________________________________________________________ Tree loss and damage appraisals
Tree planting programs
Tree protection for construction projects
Tree risk assessment
Expert witness (focus on tree worker injuries, person’s injuries as a result of tree failures, tree worker safety regulations, property damage due to tree workers’ negligence) Arboricultural forensic investigations
Litigation support services for plaintiff and defense attorneys Been retained for services in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Maine, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona and Italy
Community Service_______________________________________________________ April 2022 – ISA Board Certified Master Arborist Test Committee volunteer September 2023 – ASCA Ambassador
ProClimb donates free tree work services to local pre-schools, schools and churches Volunteer at elementary, middle and high schools, and educate children about the importance and benefits of trees
Interests________________________________________________________________ Read and studied entire Alex Shigo’s book and publications collection Educating clients and young generation about trees
Collecting research data regarding tree diseases and various pathogens Attending seminars, local and national trade association conferences webinars and lectures to further expand knowledge
Languages______________________________________________________________ English and Czech
30.113
December 25, 2023
End of Report
30.114
Dedicated to the Preservation of Trees
119 Surfside Avenue
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
831.426.6603 office
831.234.7739 mobile
[email protected]
www.consultingarborists.com
Consulting Arborists
A Limited Peer Review
Coast Redwood Tree Removal Permit Appeal
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz California
Prepared for
Keelan Franzen, Appellant
30.115
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA Page
Coast Redwood Removal Permit Appeal-Peer Review January 7, 2024 2 BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Cruz has issued a true removal permit for a mature coast redwood that grows at 339 Walnut Street. The tree removal permit application was submitted by Lewis Tree Service, an agent for Santa Cruz Property Management, identified as the Property Owner on the application.
I was contacted by Ms. Annika Mancini an associate of Mr. Keelan Franzen who has filed an appeal. Ms. Mancini stated but she was referred to me by local arborist due to my 50+-year career as both a practicing and consulting arborist in Santa Cruz. Additionally, she was aware my extensive experience as a union carpenter constructing residential, commercial structures and Public Works facilities. She noted my tenure as a consulting arborist for several Santa Cruz County Public Works Departments, my tree preservation history working at the University of California Santa Cruz. As an independent private consultant, I’ve worked with countless developers assessing the preservation suitability of trees on development projects and working with the design teams and builders to construct with trees in a sustainable manner. She noted my commitment to objective analysis, professional ethics and the preservation of trees.
ASSIGNMENT/SCOPE OF SERVICES
Ms. Mancini requested that I review background materials, conduct a brief, limited site inspection and document my findings in the form of a peer review. She requested that I review all materials with the intention of exploring possible mitigation measures in order to preserve the redwood tree, protect the adjacent building and sidewalk.
I agreed to perform the defined services and met with Ms. Mancini on December 11, 2023 at 339 Walnut Avenue. We conducted a brief inspection while standing on public property, beyond private property boundaries.
Ms. Mancini I reviewed the following materials which were provided by Ms. Mancini:
● Arborist Reports (2) prepared by Don Cox dated May 30, 2023 and December 9th, 2023 ● TREE_PERMIT_APPLICATION_TR23-0089_AND_PICTURES
● HERITAGE_TREE_EVALUATION_TR23-0089
● Observation Letter by Mark Ritson PE RCE 37100, Terra Firma Engineering and Science dated December 4, 2023
● Structural Assessment of Existing Apartment Building Affected by Redwood Tree, Lynwall Apartments by Jodi Collins PE RCE 66954 dated July 17, 2023 ● Secondary Report by Jodi Collins from December 13th, 2023 ● Arborist Report by Monika Buczko, Registered Consulting Arborist #785 ● Engineering Report by Cascadia Engineering
● City Council Agenda Report by Parks and Recreation
● September 26 City Council Meeting Agenda Summary
NOTE: This analysis is based on my review of the background materials provided and a limited, visual inspection while standing on the ground beyond private property boundaries.
30.116
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA Page
Coast Redwood Removal Permit Appeal-Peer Review January 7, 2024 3 BRIEF SUMMARY OF FINDINGS/KEY POINTS:
After my brief inspection of the site and review of the documents provided, it is my professional opinion that the removal of the subject coast redwood tree is not only unnecessary but unwarranted. Mitigation of the current damage observed by others is readily achievable. The potential for future damage to the building foundation, sewer line and sidewalk can be diminished through the implementation of preventive measures.
This tree is currently in a good state of health as stated by others and stable. The minor “bowing” of the brick façade could have been constructed in that manner. If this minor “bow” is caused by the force of the tree’s root crown, the root crown could have been/can be shaved.
It should be noted that the minor foundation fractures could be present in other areas and consistent with degradation of concrete, a porous material with a finite life. The fractures observed by Ms. Collins have not affected the function nor revenue generation of the building.
Ms. Collins noted that the current damage is “minor”, meaning this situation can be taken with less urgency. An engineer and arborist should work in conjunction to further form a plan of preserving the tree, while protecting the structures.
PROFESSIONAL COUNTER-OPINIONS
After thorough review of Mr. Cox reports I submit the following challenges to his statements:
“Suitability for preservation: Not suitable due to root crown expansion and damage to property in process. The roots and crown cannot be cut without causing severe physiological distress and destabilization of entire tree”
● This statement is untrue. Coast redwood is an extremely resilient species and will regrow at almost from and anatomical point of tissue severance with adequate moisture. Tree structure and stability are the points of attention when removing structural roots. Once offending roots are identified, strategic pruning, shaving or removal will diminish negative impacts to tree stability. It is entirely probable that roots that may cause future damage can be successfully pruned and/or deflected through the use of root barriers to avoid future damage.
“Risk and potential targets: Risk of major damage to foundation and building and garage floor structures within 2-5 years from root and root crown expansion” ● The statement is subjective and not supported by any scientific data or formulas as to how the estimate was concluded. If this statement were proven to be true, then there are two to five years to develop and implement mitigation measures that prevent damage in a sustainable manner.
30.117
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA Page
Coast Redwood Removal Permit Appeal-Peer Review January 7, 2024 4 “Excavation in the proximity of the base of the tree is necessary. The required excavation is impossible without causing extreme physiological distress and severe damage to the tree (cutting of structural roots and root collar) and possible destabilization (risk of wind-throw toppling)” ● Inaccurate. The roots can be selectively pruned when they are identified as potentially causing damage. The tree’s root crown could have been/can be shaved to create space for analysis and maintain distance from the building foundation. Roots can be selectively pruned without negative impacts to tree health or stability. ● There are numerous mitigation measures that were not identified by Mr. Cox. This is a professional responsibility as defined by Risk Management BMPs and ANSI A-300 Standards. Available mitigation measures will be defined in subsequent sections of this document.
“TPZ: for purposes of root protection and preservation of structural-root integrity and tree stability the Tree Protection Zone recommendation is 35 feet radius distance from the tree trunk in all directions as a non intrusion, no root cutting zone for tree preservation (ISA BMP Trunk Diameter method 8:1)”
● This doesn’t apply to an existing condition. Roots were likely cut/removed from this tree in 1959 when the building was constructed. This level of root loss exceeds the stated criteria within BMPs. The current level of vigor, growth rates and stability of this tree are living examples that BMPs are only guidelines, not absolutes. “Removal is determined as unavoidable due to proximity to the structure. The tree is an obstacle for essential repairs. No reasonable means of mitigation is available that would preserve the tree” ● Again, this statement is inaccurate. Tree removal is unnecessary if yet to be defined mitigation measures are implemented and regular maintenance is performed. No maintenance has been performed by the property owner which may have avoided or diminished the “damage” currently in place.
Mr. Cox states the following conclusions in his second report on 12/9/23 after excavation with an air spade: “There is definite contact with the wall of the building by the expanding root crown of the tree, as further evidenced by the appearance of a bowed inward curvature of the brick siding at the points of contact.”
● Mr. Cox makes this statement without any supporting photographic verification, challenging the accuracy and truthfulness of his conclusion. “The air-spade excavation was a poorly advised method for any conclusive inspection, due to the limitations of the equipment and the site characteristics. Further exploration would need to be done possibly with Ground Penetrating Radar.”
● This statement invalidates Mr. Cox’ conclusion that “there is definite contact with the wall of the building….” and recommends investigation using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR).
30.118
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA Page
Coast Redwood Removal Permit Appeal-Peer Review January 7, 2024 5 After review of the Agenda Report submitted by the Parks and Recreation Department Staff, which included reports and recommendations from Jodi Collins and Don Cox, I submit the following thoughts:
“The tree is too close to the foundation to perform this root pruning work to industry standard or to protect the building foundation.”
● The mention of the root management BMPs root management and concerns over lack of stability can be refuted by intentionally examining, identifying roots that may cause damage, protecting structural and load bearing roots, avoiding unnecessary pruning/root loss and shaving/planing the tops of major supporting roots as opposed to total removal. “Given the location and growth rate of the tree, the adjacent sidewalk is likely to require periodic replacement at the owner’s expense if the tree is to remain.” ● The concern regarding frequent and expensive sidewalk repairs due to root growth can be mitigated by the use of alternative materials in conjunction with proper maintenance.
Proper maintenance will ensure that significant damage does not occur. This maintenance is an applicable treatment for all trees that grow within city limits and is not uniquely confined to the growth of this particular tree . “Although this sidewalk repair plan is possible, it is costly and may also not be a permanent solution.”
● As mentioned above; the sidewalk damage is significant but repairable. One of the major factors that caused damage was attributed to poor design and construction. The current, uplifted sidewalk was constructed without any form of reinforcement bars (rebar) or wire mesh which lends strength. Additionally, the damaged section could have been attached to the undamaged sections by “dowelling” and poured in a monolithic manner as it was constructed. This would have strengthened the sidewalk surface and provided defense against the current damage.
● Alternative materials to a cement sidewalk that are better suited for this area will be listed in this document
“There is no reasonable mitigation option to save the tree or prevent ongoing damage to the structural integrity of the building.”
● The assertion that there is no possible means to mitigate property damage declines to address the mitigation measures listed below. A trained and knowledgeable arborist can conduct these measures with consideration of all proposed safety issues.
30.119
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA Page
Coast Redwood Removal Permit Appeal-Peer Review January 7, 2024 6 DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION OPTIONS
Although the growth of the subject tree has resulted in significant sidewalk damage and possibly caused minor structural damage to the foundation, framing of the apartment building, the implementation of mitigation options, listed below would allow the retention of this stately coast redwood tree. ● Root pruning/shaving to protect building foundation and repaired sidewalk ○ The offending root crown could be or shaved and/or periodically pruned to maintain distance between the tree and building and eliminate damage potentials. ● Concrete sidewalk alternatives:
○ Decomposed Granite (DG) concrete-ized with an edge treatment. Low cost, easily maintained, and ADA compliant
○ Rubbersidewalks, Terrewalks and Verlayo offer high quality walking surfaces that can be placed over tree roots with minimal root pruning. These modular walkway panels are made from 100% recycled materials panels measuring 2' X 2'6". These thin, (less than 2” thick) cross section panels can be laid in multiples of 2-foot widths (4, 6, 8, 10 foot wide) or 2.5' widths (5, 7.5, 10 foot wide). Verlayo are even thinner, rubber sidewalk panels, from 1/2 inch to 1 1/2 inches thick and 2' X 2' dimensions-The base material can be placed around tree roots without root pruning if roots are at least 2 inches below final grade. All products are made from 100% recycled materials, rubber or plastic that are LEED and LID qualified. The panels are reusable which allow root maintenance. ■ https://terrecon.com/products/overview/
■ https://terrecon.com/products/terrewalks/
■ https://terrecon.com/products/rubbersidewalks/
■ https://terrecon.com/products/verlayo/
○ Redesign
■ Swoop sidewalk away from the tree’s root crown into the available street space ■ Utilize current Public Works design but simplified, with alternative materials and not concrete
○ Ramp Over/Elevated Sidewalk bridging roots
○ Designing and Installing Efficient Root Control Diversion Barriers ■ These are mechanical barriers constructed of a variety of materials designed to redirect root growth away from structures and sidewalks ● Sustainable Sewer Line Repair:
○ The recent information brought forward by the applicant regarding the necessity for sewer line replacement due to root intrusion bears further investigation. If this is the original sewer line, the materials used during the late 50’s would have degraded and warrant replacement/upgrade. If it has been invaded by roots, they can be “roto-rooted” to open the line. The replacement of the sewer line will have reinforced hub caps to prevent root damage.
30.120
339 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz CA Page
Coast Redwood Removal Permit Appeal-Peer Review January 7, 2024 7 CONCLUSION
After thorough review of reports and conducting a brief inspection of the tree, there are many remediation measures available to mitigate current and defend against future damage.
The subject coast redwood tree meets Heritage definition per Santa Cruz City Code. It can also be considered a Legacy, living century-old monument that can transcend generations and be passed on to those that follow us. It has measurable economic benefits to the citizens of Santa Cruz for noise attenuation, stormwater capture, carbon sequestration, temperature and pollution control among other things. There are countless immeasurable intrinsic and aesthetic benefits that are irreplaceable in the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.
Professional valuation standards to determine the monetary value of trees are defined within the Guide for Plant Appraisal. The appraised value using the Trunk Formula Method is $271, 876.
It is my professional opinion that this tree can be preserved while protecting adjacent sidewalk and building elements.
Please contact me with any questions regarding this limited peer review.
Respectfully submitted,
James P. Allen
• American Society of Arboriculture
o Registered Consulting Arborist #390
• Society of American Foresters
o Certified Urban Forester #120
• International Society of Arboriculture
o Board Certified Master Arborist #625B
• International Society of Arboriculture
o Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
• Santa Cruz City Business License Holder
30.121
From: Nancy Lenz
To: City Council
Subject: Redwood heritage trees and State of sidewalks for handicapped seniors Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 4:49:20 PM
From: Nancy Lenz, Pilkington Ave., Santa Cruz, 95062 CA The state of sidewalks in the City of Santa Cruz have caused me to trip and fall twice in the past few months. I tripped once near my home on a lip in the sidewalk caused by bamboo plant growth next to the sidewalk. The latest trip had me flat on my face on East Cliff Drive on an uneven asphalt path with an ambulance ride and a four hour visit to Emergency.
Regarding the heritage redwood tree now being considered by the City Council. Redwoods are beautiful trees, but their roots are shallow and can spread for many feet. The roots of a redwood tree planted by my neighbor 25 years ago a few feet within my property line has lifted cement and spread into our sewer ejection system. The tree has grown from a sapling to over 4 stories high. Redwood trees are wonderful trees in the RIGHT place. Downtown next to a sidewalk in the city is not the right place. Make the sidewalks safe for the seniors in the City of Santa Cruz.
Nancy Lenz
30.122
From: Brian M
To: City Council
Subject: Save the tree
Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 5:00:04 PM
Dear councilmembers,
I urge you to keep that giant redwood tree at the corner of Lincoln and Walnut. I know that it's encroaching on the apartment building, but isn't that what insurance is for? Redwoods are an iconic representation of Northern California and to cut one down so close to city hall is a bad look for us as a "green" city.
Regards,
Brian MacDonald
219 Walnut Avenue
Santa Cruz
30.123
From: Patrick Macfarlane
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Undeliverable: Re: Tree appeal green infastructure Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 5:15:41 PM
Attachments: Low Impact Infastructure-3.pdf
Statement of intent document attached, to be reviewed at tomorrows meeting.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:13 PM Patrick Macfarlane <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Your message wasn't delivered to anyone because it's too large. The limit is 29 MB. Your message is 31 MB. [email protected]
Your message couldn't be sent because it's too large.
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: vEX2016b.CityofSantaCruz.org
[email protected]
Remote Server returned '550 5.2.12 RESOLVER.RST.SendSizeLimit.Org; message too large for this organization' Original message headers:
Received: from vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org (172.29.4.58) by vEX2016b.CityofSantaCruz.org (172.29.4.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
15.1.2507.23; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:07:57 -0800
Received: from DS0PR09CU002.outbound.protection.outlook.com (192.168.111.105) by vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org (172.29.4.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:07:57 -0800 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=mAUvvQPRba6jKkvj+sRahJL2DpGPVrN70ELRCB7PHrEQGDBeNSr5G6KGhE3hRQsqunY8dwCpIxQCzbY7y3qCWtkPIt8GO7F78fvsN92mVZecRa0OPvbKjQeRFespBPD8nBRfuJFa7OpHX1t7TYMBjJbnxybVK2aIgZS+PfNxa22eQycw9EFefvYwDbFaZZtUgyhgd1LhCQdqZkZpYc5lbv+iEWv+PKO/3xV9oEnK35tabtKXQ4IJIRW561TDO/v5EeQfKeb9/uebRMDPmjyqyMp+3oY9b4h6ZEK4ckw7NBPfW5Tb8ylv94f7ZkrXs+53Vg8wPWiliN7oXrvUgYximw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=rklg/FMmMK4/YZcpXsUZKmMTo4byGutFa5smfnYqOYw=;
b=EmUzGctUJhu9CPlec0iEDtQu5Ri8oe0JGZGAKHxg5YaqrMu16NJ74EeD4qnjkc4h2Ev7cug7KdoJi8jM0RNQXhagD1TKj6EqnuNtNv8Y+BMevH/u71YTkJgF6Ru2okjsvK+RCzRvTz/XtA+SMiJ3Zc+YzvsYZcgoMRAEe2CFNuqUXNnX+f1WQGkj8fc/naTTeZNrOmeSHwn8mxySSOs/Q26WwonZiQgnIMbtFis+zcOKKT30zHBPpZgWmfWgSwZuwRtDoTIt3G/lXDhWpJ+unGhaCnl5BhoIdGseO+EjzfPFWUD4TMfT+whB217ptdZCUg86P1xk7Z/ZqfU8u5WDFQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 209.85.210.178) smtp.rcpttodomain=santacruzca.gov smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=gmail.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com; arc=none (0) Received: from BL0PR0901CA0024.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:1c0::34) by SA1PR09MB11754.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:363::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7159.23; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:06:19 +0000
Received: from BL02EPF0001B418.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:1c0:cafe::6d) by BL0PR0901CA0024.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:208:1c0::34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7159.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:06:18 +0000
Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.210.178) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com;compauth=pass reason=100 Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.178 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.210.178; helo=mail-pf1-f178.google.com; pr=C Received: from mail-pf1-f178.google.com (209.85.210.178) by BL02EPF0001B418.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.242.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
15.20.7181.12 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:06:18 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f178.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6d9bee259c5so1306698b3a.1 for <[email protected]>; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 17:06:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704762377; x=1705367177; darn=santacruzca.gov; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=rklg/FMmMK4/YZcpXsUZKmMTo4byGutFa5smfnYqOYw=;
b=TZ8jR1cLNVuV26oHCaaM5QGt01fngqHWvbo9+EHVnSUBi/xqjtzt5McQ4lc6NbH/SX Yj58gCaiXIq31mBYHmoFAr57TuthNHwwRJ6ttIWGx79YeHtvsYmzUBc/hFNOYKnznCtA bKrB2SElos0PlA1IAdl1dkuFLyb9YMP+MuP1iMQVlbmHDbNfz/aGugrFqVyz3U0T1z0S BGArmmULTiskbUF8OfEg9wELVmgYjWgFOWFUj+34RtKuC/nortSb8RpL61dTLzIzQrX3 hZBmb7+MMddiKhhV4bVzvh6GUgzWRBjldiNYeNElioieNd5FMBx6M1pGFEPhJc8VqLzE 55NQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704762377; x=1705367177; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rklg/FMmMK4/YZcpXsUZKmMTo4byGutFa5smfnYqOYw=;
b=S+9oz69h1yLHs66+NbdE+0GKF7UC0r4JPcTnbY38o4n/F9KaDP4l76ubbSkqI+83VO p9xBMCAQdfA1WXmZpWQFXla9QcE/l4tBlo03askwiqbn/TXQ8IA5/uQu6zp36+T3W4l9 itfG4tJDFGrycyAD7JwyJkSmKaFo84R+8AtKr5IWjirhmQ6zQmV1obKztpGfqUbQtcqy 7EDVrh+6lNuNksp1hoWUgIXy1T3c7wGbx8VsLb3BLMktG3oiew/XHDhTL13HpLJv0aNp KeQ+GTcBzG7oTkiL/Y3P6bKAIZleV6RPoOBJCJaF5fJJGcXv9mq5q3d6ynBRdGgo0HfS +J5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YweHcSM1eEGqcp7I5UyjpLZ0TazCXCwf/LrhAJq4i+d07plRybr wfdyjBZfMGomPwfeday3QBP8daSP9HdJ6q1N3n7zx3fF4eE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG0ugTN44hKgH4dqIl21Y1i0QLxem/nwYlF+K5QkEmBsJxY78lTfbq0bFhuzPQ1Aai0Wof5tpTKRQ2TehsNVFM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:3f02:b0:199:d092:ae46 with SMTP id az2-20020a056a203f0200b00199d092ae46mr1069876pzb.57.1704762370499; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 17:06:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP8HB6wjdSL2+hMknaV4Zi3HKm0zt0XvU4eAfDkZCwCJXanmDQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAP8HB6wjdSL2+hMknaV4Zi3HKm0zt0XvU4eAfDkZCwCJXanmDQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Patrick Macfarlane <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:05:56 -0800 Message-ID: <CAP8HB6wfikSGZUbGyGRQ9+S5yZP50JojX28hJre75MiRXUpRHQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Tree appeal green infastructure To: <[email protected]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000008895a6060e78eb2c" Return-Path: [email protected] X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-EOPTenantAttributedMessage: feab8902-637f-47b2-a683-641ca716ec3f:0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BL02EPF0001B418:EE_|SA1PR09MB11754:EE_ X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: a4907862-8b00-498e-a26b-08dc10af2fe0 X-LD-Processed: feab8902-637f-47b2-a683-641ca716ec3f,ExtAddr X-MS-Exchange-AtpMessageProperties: SA|SL
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: =?utf-8?B?bWY1NXpMZlU4bEt3bFIxSHgxaUFsTUQ2RnJseStDd3Z2NXVleGdYRzM1bS9l?= =?utf-8?B?SXFqcVpQdTBzSUZ3empmNXZ4S3ppMVlwazk3ZU55VkR2T3JvdEVKaXY3TTY2?= =?utf-8?B?ay8raktJNERySWhGVFZSeGZUTndWaEFKYjlzNEVBWGNkaVhMdVpvNVJ0ZEo2?= =?utf-8?B?enlUMzY0eG1MMHJJa0xqNGNRQ1Bockk1V3NMZnNsd1hqS2w3WEc4SlNWeTl0?= =?utf-8?B?dHpqNXpwWlVEU1o0aVZLRFhpZEF5UDRtUDJJdzFrVE9xYlU0SlRjdXdiS0pY?= =?utf-8?B?Sjh6R1BVQlUvT0xyczkzYWpoY0h1NzRwVXNNQW9MSEdERXViRXFMRWFpSFox?= =?utf-8?B?cnl3L3gybjZWbHZISnFxSUkvNTBDVitpaml1YUJoTGMzWDdyKzJzSDIwamlr?= =?utf-8?B?RW5uaUNCVXN1SEFGbmpsUFNsdlNmNCtKNDMvUW1KZDBWSkxNeGZnZjNDSWVT?= =?utf-8?B?alFlcXhKNERQcDh0ZHhrVU1ZL0ZDWXBtcVg2d01ZSERXV3dld01KL3dSdFBx?= =?utf-8?B?YUY4UEI4WlBON3NPeCtqTm1sYTBVV2RES3o3UUFtUXlzTDZIM25iOUJEeEVZ?= =?utf-8?B?V0lNVHc4dmZKZmJHZjI2M1g5cjJuTW8rZzVEb0NUMzBzYTArTmpTVS9qNkp4?= =?utf-8?B?ZHdDcHRzTDQ4WldRUjV1ZUQ0ZzM4MDlUNE9XK3ZSQUNleU1YMDkwem1Ddk5T?= =?utf-8?B?dWJaT09KWm9tSjZVaE52YnlHb2tZa05kSE50SyszNTkvbUJ1R3VVaHVDQXBN?= =?utf-8?B?TXdtQ2FmQWZIVEt5VGRqWGd5VXRwQU84ZDJia3VxMUh3bjN1Q0x6OFhpeEFr?= =?utf-8?B?dTZvNlYwYTBFdGFOMnA3YTlCZzFLTEMveDFJN051UTRxR0w1aDl3UW9hM0VU?= =?utf-8?B?eC9SV3hBR2RLaHJSeTA3dW9zbUNTSjFRakZTVzVOamJyRXhHL0pkMHFGZFVN?= =?utf-8?B?dWpScWd6U2FqU0hsRldUT283UTMxYlhrcy9PMERmaS83NGt3NFRnTmJlVGVo?= =?utf-8?B?TTVyR3p3SFVxQlRaRmVlOGMzb3NJaGh4M2lwMUtyd3g4RFlXVXhxNWpwVVdx?= =?utf-8?B?VnVSM3FYTHYrRjVxZEhCN1REUWU5b3hlVkozTjR6RDRhcGljVXdzNEptejFt?= =?utf-8?B?dDZsekpoTW43cTlpUGxFWmtMYmFCdjRZdnozOGp2ZVJvdnpKNFc5b3FHYmlr?= =?utf-8?B?VHhoSzY2ZFBLRlg2bHN3VzlzZTQ0RjVEU3VpdUt1cmJCbk1KdWRKRitwWE1x?= =?utf-8?B?UEhuM0VlREJTNE5CUTFzdlRDWTN5SFJwc0dWVnJFZ2o2NDVRaERiK3ZGUmpO?= =?utf-8?B?WFBjcjhiZjZFNmpNVVlYUW9XUlNRckdXUDB2aFRmSjlrWTUxQk9rL25rVlhR?= =?utf-8?B?VTNVNDJXNENpLzRUdUVIR1dVMkpUUlU0bmMzQXZaQ2V3NVhQcEhEVGpPOGY1?= =?utf-8?B?R3E2VlNJb29ERkhtWEhWNUhpSjI2VDZJT3FXazdjdEVVVW9QU0E0eEtTNEMz?= =?utf-8?B?QldFazV6MjVqaUdlcDJtdS9FMnpHejZXRmRXRmVoQnZwL0ttbmsvVFduYTAy?= =?utf-8?B?a0FZcXM5a00wazk2MDBaaFZaSlFyY0M3a1VqUkFtanZwbk1tR3RrSTBwZWtq?= =?utf-8?B?emhhd1pMRkZIWlp6aFlOVUhzVW96ajA2UFFMQkdzWHoxdy9iSk05ZUllaWwr?= =?utf-8?B?OGV0UjRoMmNCRFVsTnBlUnVZbm5xYWY3ZTV1bUt4Q1BvNDY5TnVqaXI4ak82?= =?utf-8?B?TnNXUHkrazRFU1BkVVRDMnlYSGlGM1JKZlBFUDBMRmN3ejBFZ3hvZ290Tzht?= =?utf-8?B?Q3NyVTB0NmYwU2VRRXFHUXhXS2Y0bDVJeTFTVThsbjg3NERVRTZaT3NyN1NE?= =?utf-8?B?dXUzSk5YVGtyclpSbzY1QTI3SkZ6TmNZaGhFdjJjYWJkaUhpVE5aRFN6dUhI?= =?utf-8?B?SlIrTGpLVjdaejE4TjF6ZUpQMlIvL0kzc3JkL00rZElJbDB0Y0w0VG9UQnJH?= =?utf-8?B?WXpCZTJLcjBZazRVaktZZGFlWHUzRFk4UzZXN0NVSkMvUW95UGJHT2FLdzRE?= =?utf-8?B?Mi9CMVd1U0ljVys4YldaSWQ3MFdIUXVnU0ZGQ2gvTWV3NHN0SENKelZia1V5?= =?utf-8?B?NVE4ZlZVek1NaE1vcGxKK2FBNVVSRGJyMW9EZVNFbUFXM3ZJanJUY1dMRVBQ?= =?utf-8?B?Vm9KcVZHam5VYnRWN0VVcGdqMmR4UTVYWU54c1c0TCtBMDZzTmNiazJQMWY1?= =?utf-8?B?cTdsZHdCanpVRDlTNFhNd016SjJzeVkzUCtQSGh3dmxodlVLTVFQdE4weE1u?= =?utf-8?B?Ky9jV1l2a2R6MGhPOUhrUDRMU3krWTE1RFZVL0FKdW9EUDN4dU5kRmlleVpT?= =?utf-8?B?ZlgzN2kzZjViaXUrYitZZlExdEljeTJLbWhlV1ZHT2N1TnlnUmpNc3JyUUFL?= =?utf-8?B?alJ4RnIzMGU3Ty80YU04aFVYcG5DUEY4b0dHWE1IdzdhSTlSd1oya3l6RFlh?= =?utf-8?B?MVZPam8ya3Q3UHI0RlZNem5OWjNVckhCejAwN2RudzIwZ2JxeGE0OXVtQVdU?= =?utf-8?B?TkUzWnVUM294MzFNNFBUSHNmcWJtV3dQck0yZGl5dTF2RzRjaVlJK01ZNjM0?= =?utf-8?B?dzFxeHVOdXZkOWZaejZYVkNNcG5kWDMwOU9hY1dCZ082VkJwNG1tblY1MEJs?= =?utf-8?B?YzE3ekxPbU9zYjV3aG5XK29aUzJkWStEb3FqOXAzY29DZFRHRExrR09WYU9T?= =?utf-8?B?NjlraHdzUHVVMEIydnRablRzQVJZWHlWSlpIV0N0TDhxVVZvN2doNjN4NHBK?= =?utf-8?Q?8HdP4iI9JBg111lrI8Oda/Bf1AwOxLOE0vyxmo16wq?=
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:209.85.210.178;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:mail-pf1-f178.google.com;PTR:mail-pf1-f178.google.com;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230031)(4636009)(84050400002)(451199024)(53546011)(5660300002)(8676002)(1096003)(28085005)(42186006)(76482006)(3480700007)(6916009)(86362001)(7596003)(356005)(55446002)(7636003) (26005)(21480400003)(73392003)(66574015)(336012)(82202003)(6666004)(33964004)(67856001);DIR:INB; X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2024 01:06:18.7089 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a4907862-8b00-498e-a26b-08dc10af2fe0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: feab8902-637f-47b2-a683-641ca716ec3f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BL02EPF0001B418.namprd09.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR09MB11754 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SA1PR09MB11754.namprd09.prod.outlook.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org X-OriginatorOrg: santacruzca.gov
30.124
Green Infrastructure and City Funding
Although is it a popular belief that many green infrastructure plans are untested, difficult to maintain, and risky, the EPA confirms that there are many tested methods being used in cities nationally and internationally with great success. They suggest green infrastructure plans, which offer many benefits to the longevity of a city, as opposed to an alternative: “heat islands,” which the EPA defines as “urban areas, where [concrete structures] are highly concentrated and greenery is limited.” USDA’s watershed program provides sponsorship opportunities which are “planned and carried out jointly by local, state, and federal agencies with the support of community landowners and citizens.” Through cooperative planning, and enough time set forth to create plans that benefit both cities and homeowners, the opportunities to create urban forests is unlimited. Beautifully, “research shows that urban forests have temperatures that are on average 2.9°F lower than unforested urban areas.”
The proposed design from public works sets forth a beautiful crosswalk and wider sidewalks, which could create a safer walking area for the entire public. This is an incredible opportunity to develop a community project that could benefit the local eco-systems, while also providing educational development and cultural enrichment.
Although it takes cooperation, the time set forth to truly emphasize environmental design, also called low impact development, maintains soil health, prevents flooding, prevents erosion, and maintains micro-climate. EPA defines “micro-climate”as “formed by natural or man-made geography and topography, such as hills, buildings, and the presence or absence of trees and vegetation.” Low Impact Development is the greatest way for a city to commit to environmental protection.
Low Impact Development:
The term low impact development (LID) refers to systems and practices that use or mimic natural processes that result in the infiltration, evapotranspiration or use of stormwater in
30.125
order to protect water quality and associated aquatic habitat. EPA currently uses the term green infrastructure to refer to the management of wet weather flows that use these processes, and to refer to the patchwork of natural areas that provide habitat, flood protection, cleaner air and cleaner water. At both the site and regional scale, LID/GI practices aim to preserve, restore and create green space using soils, vegetation, and rainwater harvest techniques. LID is an approach to land development (or re-development) that works with nature to manage stormwater as close to its source as possible. LID employs principles such as preserving and recreating natural landscape features, minimizing effective imperviousness to create functional and appealing site drainage that treat stormwater as a resource rather than a waste product. There are many practices that have been used to adhere to these principles such as bioretention facilities, rain gardens, vegetated rooftops, rain barrels and permeable pavements. By implementing LID principles and practices, water can be managed in a way that reduces the impact of built areas and promotes the natural movement of water within an ecosystem or watershed. Applied on a broad scale, LID can maintain or restore a watershed's hydrologic and ecological functions.”
An example from the EPA’s website:
30.126
From: Patrick Macfarlane
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Undeliverable: Re: Tree appeal green infastructure Date: Monday, January 8, 2024 5:17:38 PM
Documents sent at 5 and then had to be re-issued due to oversized files! Thank you so much for reviewing and hope they will still be considered in time.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:14 PM Patrick Macfarlane <[email protected]> wrote:
Statement of intent document attached, to be reviewed at tomorrows meeting.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:13 PM Patrick Macfarlane <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 5:08 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
Your message wasn't delivered to anyone because it's too large. The limit is 29 MB. Your message is 31 MB. [email protected]
Your message couldn't be sent because it's too large.
Diagnostic information for administrators:
Generating server: vEX2016b.CityofSantaCruz.org
[email protected]
Remote Server returned '550 5.2.12 RESOLVER.RST.SendSizeLimit.Org; message too large for this organization' Original message headers:
Received: from vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org (172.29.4.58) by vEX2016b.CityofSantaCruz.org (172.29.4.40) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
15.1.2507.23; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:07:57 -0800
Received: from DS0PR09CU002.outbound.protection.outlook.com (192.168.111.105) by vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org (172.29.4.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id
15.1.2507.23 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:07:57 -0800 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=mAUvvQPRba6jKkvj+sRahJL2DpGPVrN70ELRCB7PHrEQGDBeNSr5G6KGhE3hRQsqunY8dwCpIxQCzbY7y3qCWtkPIt8GO7F78fvsN92mVZecRa0OPvbKjQeRFespBPD8nBRfuJFa7OpHX1t7TYMBjJbnxybVK2aIgZS+PfNxa22eQycw9EFefvYwDbFaZZtUgyhgd1LhCQdqZkZpYc5lbv+iEWv+PKO/3xV9oEnK35tabtKXQ4IJIRW561TDO/v5EeQfKeb9/uebRMDPmjyqyMp+3oY9b4h6ZEK4ckw7NBPfW5Tb8ylv94f7ZkrXs+53Vg8wPWiliN7oXrvUgYximw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=rklg/FMmMK4/YZcpXsUZKmMTo4byGutFa5smfnYqOYw=;
b=EmUzGctUJhu9CPlec0iEDtQu5Ri8oe0JGZGAKHxg5YaqrMu16NJ74EeD4qnjkc4h2Ev7cug7KdoJi8jM0RNQXhagD1TKj6EqnuNtNv8Y+BMevH/u71YTkJgF6Ru2okjsvK+RCzRvTz/XtA+SMiJ3Zc+YzvsYZcgoMRAEe2CFNuqUXNnX+f1WQGkj8fc/naTTeZNrOmeSHwn8mxySSOs/Q26WwonZiQgnIMbtFis+zcOKKT30zHBPpZgWmfWgSwZuwRtDoTIt3G/lXDhWpJ+unGhaCnl5BhoIdGseO+EjzfPFWUD4TMfT+whB217ptdZCUg86P1xk7Z/ZqfU8u5WDFQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass (sender ip is 209.85.210.178) smtp.rcpttodomain=santacruzca.gov smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=none sp=quarantine pct=100) action=none header.from=gmail.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com; arc=none (0) Received: from BL0PR0901CA0024.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:1c0::34) by SA1PR09MB11754.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:806:363::22) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7159.23; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:06:19 +0000
Received: from BL02EPF0001B418.namprd09.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:1c0:cafe::6d) by BL0PR0901CA0024.outlook.office365.com (2603:10b6:208:1c0::34) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.7159.23 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:06:18 +0000
Authentication-Results: spf=pass (sender IP is 209.85.210.178) smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (signature was verified) header.d=gmail.com;dmarc=pass action=none header.from=gmail.com;compauth=pass reason=100 Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.210.178 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com; client-ip=209.85.210.178; helo=mail-pf1-f178.google.com; pr=C Received: from mail-pf1-f178.google.com (209.85.210.178) by BL02EPF0001B418.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.167.242.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id
15.20.7181.12 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 9 Jan 2024 01:06:18 +0000 Received: by mail-pf1-f178.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6d9bee259c5so1306698b3a.1 for <[email protected]>; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 17:06:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704762377; x=1705367177; darn=santacruzca.gov; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to;
bh=rklg/FMmMK4/YZcpXsUZKmMTo4byGutFa5smfnYqOYw=;
b=TZ8jR1cLNVuV26oHCaaM5QGt01fngqHWvbo9+EHVnSUBi/xqjtzt5McQ4lc6NbH/SX Yj58gCaiXIq31mBYHmoFAr57TuthNHwwRJ6ttIWGx79YeHtvsYmzUBc/hFNOYKnznCtA bKrB2SElos0PlA1IAdl1dkuFLyb9YMP+MuP1iMQVlbmHDbNfz/aGugrFqVyz3U0T1z0S BGArmmULTiskbUF8OfEg9wELVmgYjWgFOWFUj+34RtKuC/nortSb8RpL61dTLzIzQrX3 hZBmb7+MMddiKhhV4bVzvh6GUgzWRBjldiNYeNElioieNd5FMBx6M1pGFEPhJc8VqLzE 55NQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704762377; x=1705367177; h=to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=rklg/FMmMK4/YZcpXsUZKmMTo4byGutFa5smfnYqOYw=;
b=S+9oz69h1yLHs66+NbdE+0GKF7UC0r4JPcTnbY38o4n/F9KaDP4l76ubbSkqI+83VO p9xBMCAQdfA1WXmZpWQFXla9QcE/l4tBlo03askwiqbn/TXQ8IA5/uQu6zp36+T3W4l9 itfG4tJDFGrycyAD7JwyJkSmKaFo84R+8AtKr5IWjirhmQ6zQmV1obKztpGfqUbQtcqy 7EDVrh+6lNuNksp1hoWUgIXy1T3c7wGbx8VsLb3BLMktG3oiew/XHDhTL13HpLJv0aNp KeQ+GTcBzG7oTkiL/Y3P6bKAIZleV6RPoOBJCJaF5fJJGcXv9mq5q3d6ynBRdGgo0HfS +J5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YweHcSM1eEGqcp7I5UyjpLZ0TazCXCwf/LrhAJq4i+d07plRybr wfdyjBZfMGomPwfeday3QBP8daSP9HdJ6q1N3n7zx3fF4eE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IG0ugTN44hKgH4dqIl21Y1i0QLxem/nwYlF+K5QkEmBsJxY78lTfbq0bFhuzPQ1Aai0Wof5tpTKRQ2TehsNVFM= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:3f02:b0:199:d092:ae46 with SMTP id az2-20020a056a203f0200b00199d092ae46mr1069876pzb.57.1704762370499; Mon, 08 Jan 2024 17:06:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAP8HB6wjdSL2+hMknaV4Zi3HKm0zt0XvU4eAfDkZCwCJXanmDQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAP8HB6wjdSL2+hMknaV4Zi3HKm0zt0XvU4eAfDkZCwCJXanmDQ@mail.gmail.com> From: Patrick Macfarlane <[email protected]> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:05:56 -0800 Message-ID: <CAP8HB6wfikSGZUbGyGRQ9+S5yZP50JojX28hJre75MiRXUpRHQ@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Tree appeal green infastructure To: <[email protected]> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="0000000000008895a6060e78eb2c" Return-Path: [email protected] X-EOPAttributedMessage: 0 X-EOPTenantAttributedMessage: feab8902-637f-47b2-a683-641ca716ec3f:0 X-MS-PublicTrafficType: Email
X-MS-TrafficTypeDiagnostic: BL02EPF0001B418:EE_|SA1PR09MB11754:EE_ X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: a4907862-8b00-498e-a26b-08dc10af2fe0 X-LD-Processed: feab8902-637f-47b2-a683-641ca716ec3f,ExtAddr X-MS-Exchange-AtpMessageProperties: SA|SL
X-Microsoft-Antispam: BCL:0;
X-Microsoft-Antispam-Message-Info: =?utf-8?B?bWY1NXpMZlU4bEt3bFIxSHgxaUFsTUQ2RnJseStDd3Z2NXVleGdYRzM1bS9l?= =?utf-8?B?SXFqcVpQdTBzSUZ3empmNXZ4S3ppMVlwazk3ZU55VkR2T3JvdEVKaXY3TTY2?= =?utf-8?B?ay8raktJNERySWhGVFZSeGZUTndWaEFKYjlzNEVBWGNkaVhMdVpvNVJ0ZEo2?= =?utf-8?B?enlUMzY0eG1MMHJJa0xqNGNRQ1Bockk1V3NMZnNsd1hqS2w3WEc4SlNWeTl0?= =?utf-8?B?dHpqNXpwWlVEU1o0aVZLRFhpZEF5UDRtUDJJdzFrVE9xYlU0SlRjdXdiS0pY?= =?utf-8?B?Sjh6R1BVQlUvT0xyczkzYWpoY0h1NzRwVXNNQW9MSEdERXViRXFMRWFpSFox?= =?utf-8?B?cnl3L3gybjZWbHZISnFxSUkvNTBDVitpaml1YUJoTGMzWDdyKzJzSDIwamlr?= =?utf-8?B?RW5uaUNCVXN1SEFGbmpsUFNsdlNmNCtKNDMvUW1KZDBWSkxNeGZnZjNDSWVT?= =?utf-8?B?alFlcXhKNERQcDh0ZHhrVU1ZL0ZDWXBtcVg2d01ZSERXV3dld01KL3dSdFBx?= =?utf-8?B?YUY4UEI4WlBON3NPeCtqTm1sYTBVV2RES3o3UUFtUXlzTDZIM25iOUJEeEVZ?= =?utf-8?B?V0lNVHc4dmZKZmJHZjI2M1g5cjJuTW8rZzVEb0NUMzBzYTArTmpTVS9qNkp4?= =?utf-8?B?ZHdDcHRzTDQ4WldRUjV1ZUQ0ZzM4MDlUNE9XK3ZSQUNleU1YMDkwem1Ddk5T?= =?utf-8?B?dWJaT09KWm9tSjZVaE52YnlHb2tZa05kSE50SyszNTkvbUJ1R3VVaHVDQXBN?= =?utf-8?B?TXdtQ2FmQWZIVEt5VGRqWGd5VXRwQU84ZDJia3VxMUh3bjN1Q0x6OFhpeEFr?= =?utf-8?B?dTZvNlYwYTBFdGFOMnA3YTlCZzFLTEMveDFJN051UTRxR0w1aDl3UW9hM0VU?= =?utf-8?B?eC9SV3hBR2RLaHJSeTA3dW9zbUNTSjFRakZTVzVOamJyRXhHL0pkMHFGZFVN?= =?utf-8?B?dWpScWd6U2FqU0hsRldUT283UTMxYlhrcy9PMERmaS83NGt3NFRnTmJlVGVo?= =?utf-8?B?TTVyR3p3SFVxQlRaRmVlOGMzb3NJaGh4M2lwMUtyd3g4RFlXVXhxNWpwVVdx?= =?utf-8?B?VnVSM3FYTHYrRjVxZEhCN1REUWU5b3hlVkozTjR6RDRhcGljVXdzNEptejFt?= =?utf-8?B?dDZsekpoTW43cTlpUGxFWmtMYmFCdjRZdnozOGp2ZVJvdnpKNFc5b3FHYmlr?= =?utf-8?B?VHhoSzY2ZFBLRlg2bHN3VzlzZTQ0RjVEU3VpdUt1cmJCbk1KdWRKRitwWE1x?= =?utf-8?B?UEhuM0VlREJTNE5CUTFzdlRDWTN5SFJwc0dWVnJFZ2o2NDVRaERiK3ZGUmpO?= =?utf-8?B?WFBjcjhiZjZFNmpNVVlYUW9XUlNRckdXUDB2aFRmSjlrWTUxQk9rL25rVlhR?= =?utf-8?B?VTNVNDJXNENpLzRUdUVIR1dVMkpUUlU0bmMzQXZaQ2V3NVhQcEhEVGpPOGY1?= =?utf-8?B?R3E2VlNJb29ERkhtWEhWNUhpSjI2VDZJT3FXazdjdEVVVW9QU0E0eEtTNEMz?= =?utf-8?B?QldFazV6MjVqaUdlcDJtdS9FMnpHejZXRmRXRmVoQnZwL0ttbmsvVFduYTAy?= =?utf-8?B?a0FZcXM5a00wazk2MDBaaFZaSlFyY0M3a1VqUkFtanZwbk1tR3RrSTBwZWtq?= =?utf-8?B?emhhd1pMRkZIWlp6aFlOVUhzVW96ajA2UFFMQkdzWHoxdy9iSk05ZUllaWwr?= =?utf-8?B?OGV0UjRoMmNCRFVsTnBlUnVZbm5xYWY3ZTV1bUt4Q1BvNDY5TnVqaXI4ak82?= =?utf-8?B?TnNXUHkrazRFU1BkVVRDMnlYSGlGM1JKZlBFUDBMRmN3ejBFZ3hvZ290Tzht?= =?utf-8?B?Q3NyVTB0NmYwU2VRRXFHUXhXS2Y0bDVJeTFTVThsbjg3NERVRTZaT3NyN1NE?= =?utf-8?B?dXUzSk5YVGtyclpSbzY1QTI3SkZ6TmNZaGhFdjJjYWJkaUhpVE5aRFN6dUhI?= =?utf-8?B?SlIrTGpLVjdaejE4TjF6ZUpQMlIvL0kzc3JkL00rZElJbDB0Y0w0VG9UQnJH?= =?utf-8?B?WXpCZTJLcjBZazRVaktZZGFlWHUzRFk4UzZXN0NVSkMvUW95UGJHT2FLdzRE?= =?utf-8?B?Mi9CMVd1U0ljVys4YldaSWQ3MFdIUXVnU0ZGQ2gvTWV3NHN0SENKelZia1V5?= =?utf-8?B?NVE4ZlZVek1NaE1vcGxKK2FBNVVSRGJyMW9EZVNFbUFXM3ZJanJUY1dMRVBQ?= =?utf-8?B?Vm9KcVZHam5VYnRWN0VVcGdqMmR4UTVYWU54c1c0TCtBMDZzTmNiazJQMWY1?= =?utf-8?B?cTdsZHdCanpVRDlTNFhNd016SjJzeVkzUCtQSGh3dmxodlVLTVFQdE4weE1u?= =?utf-8?B?Ky9jV1l2a2R6MGhPOUhrUDRMU3krWTE1RFZVL0FKdW9EUDN4dU5kRmlleVpT?= =?utf-8?B?ZlgzN2kzZjViaXUrYitZZlExdEljeTJLbWhlV1ZHT2N1TnlnUmpNc3JyUUFL?= =?utf-8?B?alJ4RnIzMGU3Ty80YU04aFVYcG5DUEY4b0dHWE1IdzdhSTlSd1oya3l6RFlh?= =?utf-8?B?MVZPam8ya3Q3UHI0RlZNem5OWjNVckhCejAwN2RudzIwZ2JxeGE0OXVtQVdU?= =?utf-8?B?TkUzWnVUM294MzFNNFBUSHNmcWJtV3dQck0yZGl5dTF2RzRjaVlJK01ZNjM0?= =?utf-8?B?dzFxeHVOdXZkOWZaejZYVkNNcG5kWDMwOU9hY1dCZ082VkJwNG1tblY1MEJs?= =?utf-8?B?YzE3ekxPbU9zYjV3aG5XK29aUzJkWStEb3FqOXAzY29DZFRHRExrR09WYU9T?= =?utf-8?B?NjlraHdzUHVVMEIydnRablRzQVJZWHlWSlpIV0N0TDhxVVZvN2doNjN4NHBK?= =?utf-8?Q?8HdP4iI9JBg111lrI8Oda/Bf1AwOxLOE0vyxmo16wq?=
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:209.85.210.178;CTRY:US;LANG:en;SCL:1;SRV:;IPV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;H:mail-pf1-f178.google.com;PTR:mail-pf1-f178.google.com;CAT:NONE;SFS:(13230031)(4636009)(84050400002)(451199024)(53546011)(5660300002)(8676002)(1096003)(28085005)(42186006)(76482006)(3480700007)(6916009)(86362001)(7596003)(356005)(55446002)(7636003) (26005)(21480400003)(73392003)(66574015)(336012)(82202003)(6666004)(33964004)(67856001);DIR:INB; X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2024 01:06:18.7089 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a4907862-8b00-498e-a26b-08dc10af2fe0 X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: feab8902-637f-47b2-a683-641ca716ec3f X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BL02EPF0001B418.namprd09.prod.outlook.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SA1PR09MB11754 X-OrganizationHeadersPreserved: SA1PR09MB11754.namprd09.prod.outlook.com X-CrossPremisesHeadersPromoted: vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org X-CrossPremisesHeadersFiltered: vEX2016a.CityofSantaCruz.org X-OriginatorOrg: santacruzca.gov
30.127
31.1 31.2
31.3