Tree Issues, Hendricks Park - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

HENTRgES.WP Page 1 MEMORANDUM To: Vicki Elmer, City Manager From: Terry Smith, Deputy Public Works Director Subject: Hazardous Trees In Hendricks Park Before she left, Chris asked me to monitor this issue as the staff prepares for their next meeting with the small ad -hoc citizens group. Today the staff reviewed additional test data on the 18 trees previously designated hazardous near the park shelter. This data (core samples and root examinations) confirms that 6 of the 18 have sufficient rot to pose an eminent danger of structural failure. Consultations with two forest pathologists produced mixed opinion with one favoring more removals than the other. These opinions were given prior to the core sampling and root examinations. Of the remaining 12 trees, one is very healthy and the remainder have some rot. However, all of the 12 have several other risk factors - shallow roots, topy or one -sided crowns, sloping terrain and high likelihood of causing significant damage to citizens property or park users when they fall. We have discussed the value of additional storm drainage in the park and occasional monitoring of the trees for sign of eminent failure. Neither of these alternative appear to provide much in the way of increased safety for citizens from these 18 trees. Additional drainage may increase the life span of some remaining trees. For these reasons, the staff view has not changed, the Urban Forester still recommends the removal of the 18 trees. The balance of both the staff and consultant opinion is that the removal of these 18 trees will not increase the likelihood of wind throw for the remaining trees. This does not, however, completely remove the risk of tree fall for park neighbors. As you are aware, these are judgment calls where we are required to judge relative risk. The removal of hte 18 tress will significantly reduce the danger to citizens. The danger to citizens without removal is in a range I would call moderate. None of the citizen comments have raised a reason sufficient, in the staffs view, for not removing all 18 trees. The consensus of the citizens is that only 2 or 3 of the trees should be removed. From a review of the written and verbal comments from the small group, it appears that many of the citizens have become too focused on the issue of the amount of rot in the trees and seem to have lost an understanding of how extensive tree failures have been in this park in the last few years - circa 100 tree falls since 1990. In addition some of the citizens place much less value on health and safety concerns than on tree protection or park esthetics. We will find out tonight if it is possible to bridge any of those gaps between the staff and the small citizens group. But even if we bridge the information gaps, there will still remain differences about the balance between safety risks and esthetics /tree protection. The citizens who own homes below the trees and the staff clearly give risk a much higher weight in decision making than some of the other citizens.