HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1_Appeal of TRH 18-09
DATE: August 28, 2018
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Lisa L. Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator
By: Peter Sun, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL OF HEALTHY
PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TRH 18-09 FOR THE
REMOVAL OF FIVE (5) HEALTHY OAK TREES TO ACCOMMODATE A
NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TWO (2) DISEASED OAK
TREES WITH A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AT 111 HACIENDA
DRIVE
Recommendation: Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Director’s
Approval
SUMMARY
The Appellants, George and Ana Raptis, property owners at 101 Hacienda Drive, have
filed an appeal of the Director’s decision for the approval of Healthy Protected Tree
Removal Permit No. TRH 18-09 to remove five (5) healthy oak trees to accommodate a
new single-family house, and two (2) diseased Coast Live Oak trees, at 111 Hacienda
Drive. The architectural design of the new house was approved by the Santa Anita
Oaks Architectural Review Board (ARB).
It is recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the
Director’s approval of Healthy Protected Tree Removal Permit No. TRH 18-09, and find
that the project is Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act
(“CEQA”).
BACKGROUND
The subject property is a 34,036 square foot interior lot, zoned R-0 with a Design
Overlay, and is located within the Santa Anita Oaks (“Oaks”) Home Owners’ Association
area – refer to Attachment No. 3 – Aerial photo with Zoning Information and Photos of
the Subject Property and Vicinity. The Oaks HOA is characterized by large lots and
wide, tree lined streets. Most properties feature large mature trees and lush
landscaping. The site is currently developed with a 3,530 square foot, one-story
residence that was built in 1948, and includes 23 protected trees: 21 Coast Live Oak
Appeal of TRH 18-09
111 Hacienda Drive
August 28, 2018 – Page 2 of 7
trees and two (2) Sycamore trees. The Certificate of Demolition for the existing
residence was approved on June 18, 2018.
As part of the design review process for the new house, the property owners
participated in a preliminary design meeting with the Santa Anita Oaks HOA
Architectural Review Board Chair, Tom Walker, and ARB Co-Chair, Vince Vargas, to
receive guidance, discuss the location of the new building footprint for the new
residence, and discuss how the new residence may affect some of the protected trees
that are currently in the middle of the lot. During the site visit, they agreed that the
largest mature Coast Live Oak tree (tree no. 7) that is approximately 60 feet tall with
three co-dominant trunks (refer to Figure 1) should be protected and the new house
should be designed around it.
In January of 2018, the property owner filed a Regular Review application with the ARB
for a new 7,283 square foot, one-story single-family residence with garages totaling
1,103 square feet. A noticed public hearing by the ARB was required for the review of a
new home per Resolution No. 6770, which authorizes the ARB to approve the design of
a new home. On April 26, 2018, a hearing was held to consider the design and
placement of the new house. As proposed, the home required the removal of five (5)
Coast Live Oak trees. The house was designed around the largest mature Coast Live
Oak tree that is approximately 60 feet tall (referenced as tree no. 7). Resolution No.
6770 does not give the ARB the authority to make any final decisions on the removal of
trees, but existing vegetation and landforms are considered through this process,
including identifying which trees would be impacted. Through the design review
process, the ARB has the ability to require the house to be redesigned if they believe
the house could be designed in a manner to minimize any potential impacts to the
protected trees. At the meeting, the neighbors did express concerns and felt the house
should be redesigned to fit within the existing landscape and environment. After much
discussion, the Oaks HOA ARB conditionally approved the project, with the
understanding that the removal of the protected trees would be subject to the City’s
review process – refer to Attachment No. 6 – ARB Minutes and Findings and Action
form.
On June 7, 2018, the property owner filed Healthy Tree Removal Permit No. TRH 18-09
to remove the five (5) healthy protected Coast Live Oak trees for the new residence.
The tree evaluation, completed by Certified Arborist, McKinley & Associates, pointed out
that there were two other Coast Live Oak trees that were diseased on the site (trees
nos. 3 and 8) - refer to Attachment No. 4. As part of the tree removal request process, a
Notice of Pending Decision was sent to all the property owners within a 300 foot radius,
to give the nearby residents an opportunity to comment on the request. During the
notification period, staff received two letters from the Appellant at 101 Hacienda Drive
and Mr. and Ms. Arevalo at 121 Hacienda Drive, both located next to the subject
property – refer to Attachment No. 7.
Although the two diseased Coast Live Oak trees are typically reviewed and approved
administratively without having to be noticed, they were included as part of the healthy
removal tree notice to avoid decision making in a piece-meal fashion. However, since
there were comments received questioning the validity of the arborist report’s findings
Appeal of TRH 18-09
111 Hacienda Drive
August 28, 2018 – Page 3 of 7
about the diseased trees, staff requested that the City’s landscape consultant,
Armstrong and Walker Landscape Architecture, to visit the site to inspect those trees.
Although Ms. Armstrong was not able to get into the backyard, she was able to visually
inspect tree no. 3, and concluded that the tree was likely diseased with Polyphagus
Shot-Hole Borer, consistent with Mr. McKinley’s findings.
On July 12, 2018, the City conditionally approved the request to remove the five (5)
healthy Coast Live Oak trees for the new residence, and the two diseased Oak trees
that were located outside of the building footprint. In terms of replacement, a total of
three large mature trees were required to be placed within the front yard area since the
rear yard had an overabundance of mature trees, and the new trees would help soften
the appearance of the new house and enhance the overall landscape character of the
Santa Anita Oaks area.
On July 23, 2018, an appeal of the Director’s decision was filed by the Appellants, Mr.
and Mrs. Raptis – refer to Attachment No. 1. The Appellants also included a letter from
Allan and Marlene Arevalo, property owners at 121 Hacienda Drive, who were also
opposed to the project and removal of the trees. The property owner, Mr. Zaifman,
submitted a letter in response to the appeal – refer to Attachment No. 2.
ANALYSIS
In the appeal letter, the Appellants stated that the reason for the appeal was that they
felt the trees should not be removed to accommodate a new single-family home
because they have enjoyed shade, privacy, and view of those trees for many years, and
alternative designs should be considered by the ARB to avoid the removal of any
protected healthy oak trees. Mr. and Mrs. Arevalo were concerned with the process as it
did not take into consideration the community’s views when it comes to protecting trees
– refer to Attachment No. 1.
The ARB is charged with reviewing the design of any new home or addition within their
Home Owners’ Association area for consistency with the City’s design guidelines and
regulations in City Council Resolution No. 6770, which are intended to ensure that new
homes and site designs are harmonious and compatible with the neighborhood. The
design guidelines include, but are not limited to, site planning, landscape and
hardscape, architectural style, and massing. Decisions on a new home or addition
should always take into consideration the impact on the site as a whole.
Section 4.M of Resolution No. 6770 establishes that the City Planning Staff must
approve the removal of any Oak tree, or construction of any improvements under the
drip line of Oak trees.
Removal of the Healthy Coast Live Oak Trees
The City’s protected tree ordinance allows a healthy protected tree to be removed if
there are no other viable alternatives to preserve or design around the trees. The
approval was to remove five (5) healthy Coast Live Oak trees: three trees in the middle
of the lot (tree nos. 9, 10, and 11), and two along the easterly side yard area (tree nos.
12 and 13). The two oak trees within the easterly side property yard setback are located
approximately 12 feet from the eastern property line. For reference, below is a key map.
Appeal of TRH 18-09
111 Hacienda Drive
August 28, 2018 – Page 4 of 7
Figure 1. Site Plan with protected trees numbered for reference. Red - Healthy Coast Live Oak
trees. Blue –Diseased Coast Live Oak trees.
Staff concurs with the ARB determination that the approved design was the most
suitable for the lot in terms of its design and scale being compatible with the
neighborhood, and having the least impact to natural landscape. Also, approving a one-
story house is less impactful in terms of privacy to the neighboring properties than a
two-story house. In fact, a two-story house may be more impactful to the natural setting
because the building footprint will be larger than the existing house, and the height of a
two-story residence may impact the canopies of the existing oak trees, which may alter
the tree’s forms and appearance. The ARB Chair and Co-Chair mentioned that the
project went through two iterations before they felt the design and placement of the
house was most suitable for this lot. The ARB concluded that due to the location of the
five (5) oak trees it would have prevented the owner from adding on to his existing
house or building a brand new one, and that it would be unreasonable to expect that all
of the trees could be preserved. The largest oak tree on this property (tree no. 7) should
be preserved because of the perceived aesthetic value and its large canopy. Staff
agrees that the approved design was the best layout for this lot, and that the largest oak
tree on this lot was preserved and designed around the new home.
Diseased Trees
In addition to the removal of the five healthy oak trees, the Arborist discovered there
were two other diseased Coast Live Oak trees on the subject property. The first
diseased tree (tree no. 3) is a very large and aged Coast Live Oak located in the front
yard approximately 20 feet from the street, measuring 40 inches in diameter at breast
height. The owner’s Arborist, Mr. McKinley, observed multiple signs of decay and
disease including a three foot long vertical stress crack, white fungal tissue, hollowing in
the lower trunk, 20% of the crown comprising of dead wood, root disease, and heart rot
decay. He rated the tree’s health D- (on a scale of A to F, with A being the healthiest)
and recommended its removal for reasons of safety and liability.
Appeal of TRH 18-09
111 Hacienda Drive
August 28, 2018 – Page 5 of 7
As for the second diseased tree (tree no. 8) it is also a Coast Live Oak and that tree is
located approximately 30 feet from the western property line. The tree trunk measures
19 inches in diameter at breast height. Mr. McKinley, observed several signs of decay,
insect damage, and dead branches. He rated the health of the tree D- and
recommended its removal for reasons of safety and liability.
In the appeal letter, the Appellant is still questioning the validity of the arborist findings
and requested that they be evaluated by two other Certified Arborists to determine if the
trees can survive. Based on the Appellant’s concerns, Staff felt it was appropriate to
receive a second opinion on the health of these trees, and by a Certified Arborist that
the City contracts with. The property owner agreed to this request as his goal is to
preserve the trees, if possible. Mr. Komen from Class One Arboriculture, was retained
by the City to conduct a full evaluation of both diseased trees. Based on a thorough
evaluation, Mr. Komen concluded that tree no. 8 is diseased and has a moderate risk of
failing and causing major structural damage or severe harm if it fell on a person, but the
risk of that happening in the next three years is low – refer to Attachment No. 5. As for
tree no. 3, Mr. Komen concurred with the identification of symptoms found on tree no. 3,
and that the tree was diseased and had some decay, and there was a possible risk the
tree could fail, but it was low. Staff recommends that for these reasons the trees should
be removed.
Some of the original conditions of approval were slightly amended to provide better
clarity of what will be required by the property owner, and a new condition (no. 3) was
added to ensure that the Certified Arborist is on-site during the time of grading and
construction to monitor all activity within the driplines of all the protected trees.
Condition no. 1 was amended to require that the healthy oak trees shall not be removed
until a building permit has been issued for the new residence.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed project qualifies as a Class 3 Exemption for New Construction of Small
Structures from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
under Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. Refer to Attachment No. 8 for the
Preliminary Exemption Assessment.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for this appeal and Modification application were mailed on
August 16, 2018 to the property owners and tenants of those properties within 300 feet
of the project site. As of August 24, 2018, no additional comments or concerns were
received.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the appeal. The
Commission’s decision may be appealed to the City Council. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the ARBs decision and the
Development Services Department Director’s decision to remove five (5) healthy Coast
Live Oak trees to accommodate a new single-family residence and two (2) diseased
Appeal of TRH 18-09
111 Hacienda Drive
August 28, 2018 – Page 6 of 7
Coast Live Oak trees at 111 Hacienda Drive, and find that the project is exempt per
Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. The five (5) healthy Coast Live Oak trees shall not be removed until a grading
and/or building permit has been issued for the construction of the new residence.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy permit for the new house, a total
of three (3) replacement Coast Live Oak trees shall be planted in the front yard
area of the subject property. The size and location of the trees shall be
determined by the City’s Certified Arborist, and approved by the Planning &
Community Development Administrator or designee. A follow-up report shall be
submitted to the City that the trees were planted.
2. If the property owner chooses not to pursue with the construction of the new
house, the approval to remove the five (5) health Oak trees shall become null
and void, and the property owner would be required to plant one 48-inch box tree
within the front yard area for the removal of the diseased oak trees. The location
shall be determined by a Certified Arborist and approved by the Planning &
Community Development Administrator, or designee. A follow-up report shall be
submitted to the City that the tree was planted prior to the expiration of this
approval.
3. A Certified Arborist shall be on-site to monitor all activity taking place within the
dripline of the oak trees to remain, and for the planting of the on-site replacement
tree(s) and shall submit weekly monitoring reports to the Community
Development Administrator, or designee. If the arborist determines that any
inappropriate work has occurred, or that the tree(s) have been harmed, all work
shall be stopped until adequate remediation has been performed to the
satisfaction of a certified arborist and the Community Development Administrator,
or designee.
4. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Arcadia and
its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action,
or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or
agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of
the City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but
not limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning
Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided
for in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to
this project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim,
action, or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the
City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the
right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its
officials, officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
5. Within 30 calendar days after the decision for this project, the property
owner/applicant shall execute and file with the Community Development
Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the Development
Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these conditions
of approval.
Appeal of TRH 18-09
111 Hacienda Drive
August 28, 2018 – Page 7 of 7
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Denial of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to deny the Appeal and uphold the Development
Services Department Director’s decision, the Commission should make a motion to
deny the Appeal of Healthy Protected Tree Removal No. TRH 18-09, stating that the
removal of the tree is consistent with the City’s tree ordinance and with City Council
Resolution No. 6770.
Approval of Appeal
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the Appeal and overturn the
Development Services Department Director’s decision on the removal of the healthy
protected trees, the Commission should make a motion to approve the Appeal of
Healthy Protected Tree Removal No. TRH 18-09, find that the project is not consistent
with the City’s tree Ordinance.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the August 28, 2018, Planning Commission Meeting,
please contact Peter Sun, Associate Planner by calling (626) 574-5444, or by email to
PSun@ArcadiaCA.gov.
Approved:
Lisa L. Flores
Planning & Community Development Administrator
Attachment No. 1: Appeal Letters
Attachment No. 2: Letter from Mr. Zaifman, property owner at 111 Hacienda Dr.
Attachment No. 3: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information & Photos of Subject Property
and Vicinity
Attachment No. 4: McKinley & Associates Arborist Report, dated June 7, 2018
Attachment No. 5: Class One Arboriculture Arborist Report, dated August 13, 2018
Attachment No. 6: Santa Anita Oaks ARB Findings and Action Form and Minutes of
the April 26, 2018 ARB Meeting
Attachment No. 7: Comments for TRH 18-09
Attachment No. 8: Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Attachment No. 1
Attachment No. 1
Appeal Letters
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 2
Letter from Mr. Zaifman, property owner at
111 Hacienda Drive
Attachment No. 3
Attachment No. 3
Aerial Photo with Zoning Information &
Photos of Subject Property
Overlays
Selected parcel highlighted
Parcel location within City of Arcadia
N/A
Property Owner(s):
Lot Area (sq ft):
Year Built:
Main Structure / Unit (sq. ft.):
R-O (30,000)
Number of Units:
RE
Property Characteristics
1948
3,530
1
LAMOREAUX,JOAN M LAMOREAUX TRUST
Site Address:111 HACIENDA DR
Parcel Number: 5770-002-013
N/A
Zoning:
General Plan:
N/A
Downtown Overlay:
Downtown Parking Overlay:
Architectural Design Overlay:Yes
N/A
N/A
N/A
Residential Flex Overlay:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Yes
Special Height Overlay:
N/A
Parking Overlay:
Racetrack Event Overlay:
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current,
or otherwise reliable.
Report generated 21-Aug-2018
Page 1 of 1
Tree inventory plan on page 12 of McKinley & Associates’ Arborist Report; Tree #9,10,11,12,13 are to be removed due to
the footprint of the new home; Tree #3,8 to be removed due to deteriorating health and hazardous nature.
View facing south; Tree $9,10,11 are see from right to left; portions of Tree #12 and 13 are also visible on the left.
View of Tree # 9,10,11
View of Tree #10
View of Tree #13 and existing landscape adjacent to easterly property wall.
View of existing landscaping at the easterly side yard and Tree #12 and 13 in the distance.
View of existing landscaping at easterly side yard
View of existing landscaping at easterly side yard.
View of Tree #7 (left) of 24, 24 and 30 d.b.h. to remain and #8 (right) of 19 d.b.h. to remove due to its lean and hazard.
View of Tree #7 (left) to remain and #8 (right) to remove due to its lean and hazard.
Tree #3 in front yard is 40 inch d.b.h.
Tree #3 is showing signs of bleeding cancers, phytophthora, and heart rot decay (McKinley & Associates)
Attachment No. 4
Attachment No. 4
McKinley & Associates Arborist Report
Attachment No. 5
Attachment No. 5
Class One Arboriculture Arborist Report
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
August 1
Lisa L. F
Planning
City of A
240 W. H
Arcadia,
Ms. Flore
Per your
(Quercus
email on
determin
to collect
A prior a
property
being “po
and being
both tree
cases, I c
conclusio
To frame
risk asses
posed by
within th
house wi
is low. Th
For the ri
trees. My
the target
The basic
decision
pose som
way to el
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
0, 2018
Flores
g & Commun
Arcadia
Huntington D
CA 91066
es:
request, I ha
s agrifolia) t
August 2, 2
ne if they cou
t data for thi
arborist repor
owner Ramy
otentially ha
g in “poor he
s “must be r
concur with t
ons.
e the context
ssment of th
y Tree 3 failin
he next three
ithin the nex
he overall ri
isk assessme
y observation
ts listed abov
c premise of
on how to re
me risk. Usua
liminate all t
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
Class One
3763 Ram
Glendale,
Phone: (81
nity Develop
Dr.
ave prepared
trees at 111 H
2018. You as
uld be salvag
is report.
rt had been p
y Zaifman. I
azardous.” Tr
ealth and con
removed bec
the identifica
t of this tree
e trees. In th
ng and impa
year time fr
t three year t
sk rating of
ent, I perform
ns were visu
ve. Other tar
f a tree risk a
educe their r
ally the benef
tree risk is to
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
e Arboricul
msdell Ave
CA 91214
18) 495-5344
pment Admin
d a report reg
Hacienda Dr
sked me to a
ged. I observ
prepared by
In the report
ree 8 was id
ndition.” In
cause they ar
ation of sym
for this arbo
he risk asses
acting a car,
rame is low.
time frame i
Tree 3 is low
med a Level
ual-only. I on
rgets and tre
assessment is
risk to tolera
efits provided
o eliminate a
lture Inc.
4
nistrator
garding my o
r., Arcadia, C
ssess the hea
ved the trees
McKinley &
t, Tree 3 was
dentified as h
the summar
re diseased a
mptoms, but I
orist report, I
ssment descr
a person, the
The risk pos
is moderate,
w. The overa
2 Basic Tre
nly assessed
ee parts were
s to help tree
able levels. A
d by trees ou
all trees.
observations
CA 91006 de
alth and con
on Thursday
& Associates
s assessed as
having missin
ry section, th
and are in da
I disagree w
I decided it w
ribed below,
e house, or a
sed by Tree
but the risk
all risk rating
ee Risk Asse
the likelihoo
e not conside
e risk manag
All trees prov
utweigh the r
s of the two
escribed in y
ndition of the
ay, August 9,
s on March 9
s having Phy
ng bark at th
he McKinley
anger of falli
with the sever
was appropr
, I concluded
another tree
8 failing and
k posed by im
g of Tree 8 i
ssment of th
od of whole
ered for this
gers make an
vide benefits
risks they po
Page 1
Coast Live O
your assignm
e trees and to
, 2018 at 4:3
9, 2018 for
ytophthora a
he root crow
y report state
ng.” In both
rity of the
riate to perfo
d that the risk
in the landsc
d impacting
mpacting peo
is moderate.
he two subjec
-tree failure
report.
n educated
s, and all tre
ose. The only
of 26
Oak
ment
o
30pm
and
wn
ed
h
orm a
k
cape
the
ople
ct
onto
es
y
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 2 of 26
Observations and Discussion
Tree 3
Tree 3 is a large specimen tree growing in the center of the front yard of the property. I concur
with the crown dimensions given in the McKinley report. I would also add that it is 54 feet from
the nearest corner of the house.
The canopy is slightly thinner than normal for the species, but I would not say it is sparse. The
most obvious symptoms on the tree are the many sap exudation sites along the trunk, as
identified in the McKinley report. I agree that these symptoms indicate the presence of
Phytophthora root rot. The tree is surrounded by a bed of ivy and a green lawn; both are supplied
with ample irrigation. The history of irrigation on site likely predisposed the tree to contracting
Phytophthora.
I sounded the trunk of Tee 3 with a rubber mallet, and I found there were several hollow areas in
the trunk as described in the McKinley report. In these areas, the bark had separated from the
heartwood but had not fallen off the tree to reveal a cavity. I pulled back a small piece of bark in
several of these areas to probe for the depth of the cavity. While there was some decay present,
the heartwood was only soft to a depth of one inch or less in each of the areas I tested. Deeper
than one inch, the heartwood appeared to have retained its structural integrity.
Around the edge of the symptomatic areas of the trunk, I observed several bands of response
growth tissue. It appears the tree had been depositing tissue around these affected areas over the
past 3-5 years. The new tissue has growth striations, indicating it is recent and has been
deposited rapidly. The presence of this response growth on the trunk increases its structural
stability. If the tree continues to deposit it, the new wood will offset the structural degradation of
tissue by fungal organisms.
I did not observe any indication of strength loss in the roots from my all-visual inspection. While
Phytophthora can reduce the structural integrity of the roots, the amount of such degradation was
unknown from the level of inspection performed. A higher level of inspection such as a static
pull test or a root collar excavation could potentially reveal additional information that could
inform the tree’s likelihood of failure rating.
Tree 8
Tree 8 is growing in the backyard. I concur with the observations of its placement and prevailing
lean. I also agree with the observation of its notable lack of growth cracks along the trunk.
Lastly, I agree with the absence of bark at the root crown on the northwest side of the tree and
presence of deadwood in the canopy.
I also noticed moss growing on the brick walkway near the tree. Presence of moss indicates
frequent irrigation which can predispose Coast Live Oak trees to root rot. Although no definite
indicators of root rot were observed in Tree 3, the presence of moss indicates there are conditions
that would be favorable to decay organisms.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 3 of 26
While I agree with the McKinley report’s statement that the tree is “stressed,” as indicated by the
dieback of tissue from the tips, I disagree that the tree is “clearly dying.” True, there is an
absence of bark along part of the trunk which indicates a partially-functioning vascular system to
transport water to the canopy. However, when conductivity of water is a limiting factor for the
canopy of an Oak tree, it does not necessarily follow that the tree is certain to perish in the near
future.
By relying upon extensive reserves of stored energy, Coast Live Oaks are capable of returning to
a full canopy density even following an event where every leaf is lost. This tree may have
evidence of dieback in the canopy; but I disagree that it is “dying.” A tree in similar condition
could potentially be managed and retained in the landscape for years, despite its sub-optimal
health.
The attribute of the tree that did raise a small concern was the lack of bark at the root crown as a
potential indicator of root injury. It was not possible to determine root stability of the tree from
my all-visual ground-based assessment. It is possible that there may have been a past root injury
below grade on the northwest side of the tree which resulted in the bark loss symptoms
manifesting above ground. Because of this uncertainty, I rated the likelihood of whole tree
failure accordingly. If a higher level of inspection were to reveal the root system’s structural
integrity was not compromised, then I would revise my likelihood of failure rating for the tree
downward.
Tree Risk Assessment Methodology
There are three components to a tree risk assessment: likelihood of failure, likelihood of impact,
and consequences of failure and impact. For each combination of tree part and target, I rated
each of these components. Then I combined them according to International Society of
Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practice for tree risk assessment using the tables in
Figures 1 and 2 to produce a risk rating for each tree part and target combination (Figure 3).
Lastly, I assigned an overall risk rating for the each subject tree equal to the risk rating of the tree
part and target combination with the highest risk rating.
Targets
I assessed four targets: vehicles, pedestrians, the house, and landscape trees. People in the yard
of the subject property are mobile targets. They are present in the target zone for a portion of
time, but they are either constantly moving or only stopping intermittently. It appeared that
people had an occasional occupancy rate within the target zone. They were only present within
the target zone for a small fraction of any given day. Vehicles are movable targets, and I assessed
their occupancy rate as frequent. The house and the landscape trees are fixed targets with a
constant occupancy rate. The house was within the target zone of Tree 8 but not of Tree 3.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 4 of 26
The likelihood of Tree 3 or Tree 8 impacting a person if they were to fail is low because of the
occasional occupancy rate of people in the yard of the subject property.
The likelihood of Tree 3 impacting a vehicle is medium if it were to fail because of the frequent
occupancy rate. If the tree were to fail, it may impact a vehicle, but it is not expected to do so.
The likelihood of Tree 3 impacting the house is very low if it were to fail because the house is
outside of the target zone of 1 times the tree height.
The likelihood of Tree 8 impacting the house if it were to fail is high if it were to fail because its
prevailing lean is towards the house; it may be expected to impact the edge of the house if it
were to fail.
The likelihood of Tree 3 impacting an adjacent landscape tree is high if it were to fail because
there is a tree with a constant occupancy rate in every direction within its target zone.
The consequence of Tree 3 or Tree 8 impacting a person would be severe. The consequence of
Tree 3 impacting a vehicle or the house would be significant. The consequence of Tree 8
impacting the house would be significant. The consequence of Tree 3 impacting an adjacent tree
would be minor.
Tree Parts
I assessed one tree part for likelihood of failure on each tree: whole tree failure at the base of the
stem:
- Tree 3 Whole Tree Failure: The likelihood of whole tree failure at the root crown within
the next three years is possible. It may fail in extreme weather conditions, but it is
unlikely to fail in normal weather conditions. There is a known infection of Phytophthora
that could potentially damage the structural integrity of the root system. However, I did
not observe significant strength loss to the heartwood tissue of the trunk; I only observed
degraded tissue within the outer one inch of heartwood below the damaged bark layer.
The presence of response growth tissue around the symptomatic areas of the trunk
contributes to the strength of the trunk, reducing the likelihood of failure.
- Tree 8 Whole Tree Failure: The likelihood of whole tree failure at the root crown within
the next three years is possible. It may fail in extreme weather conditions, but it is
unlikely to fail in normal weather conditions. There is a known absence of bark at the
root crown on the northwest side. This could potentially indicate strength loss below
ground, but inadequate information is available to determine the extent.
These ratings reflect the available information gained from an all-visual inspection. If a higher
level of inspection were to reveal the root system of either tree is intact, I would change its
respective likelihood of failure rating to improbable within the next three years. If a higher level
of inspection were to reveal significantly compromised roots, then I would change the rating to
probable.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 5 of 26
Risk Rating
For all combinations of target and tree part (Figure 3), I combined the likelihood of failure,
likelihood of impact, and consequences of failure and impact using the risk rating matrices in
Figures 1 and 2. The highest risk rating combination for Tree 3 was low, so the overall risk rating
for the tree is low. The highest risk rating combination for Tree 8 was moderate, so the overall
risk rating for the tree is moderate.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 6 of 26
Risk Mitigation
As a risk assessor, my job is to present options for risk mitigation. The property owner or
manager’s responsibility is to choose one or more that meets the budget and level of risk
tolerance. Each mitigation option will have residual risk unless the tree is completely removed:
1) Perform an Additional Level of Assessment: I only performed an all-visual Level 2 Basic
Tree Risk Assessment. A Level 3 Advanced Tree Risk Assessment could potentially
provide additional information that could help the tree risk manager decide how to
proceed. Such additional testing could include but is not limited to decay assessment of
the heartwood of the trees such as sonic tomography or resistance drilling, a static pull
test to measure the change in angle of lean resulting from a precise applied force, or a
root collar excavation to reveal potential hidden defects in the roots. Additional testing
could provide data that would either confirm this risk assessment or change the likelihood
of failure ratings with new information.
2) Retain and Monitor: Every 1-5 years, hire a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor (TRAQ) to re-
assess the risk rating of the trees. After each inspection, mitigation actions may be
discussed. Retaining Tree 8 without taking any mitigation action would require
acceptance of a moderate risk. Retaining Tree 3 would require acceptance of a low risk,
the lowest possible risk rating using this system of risk assessment.
3) Structural Support: Tree 3 has a prevailing lean towards the proposed structure. It may be
possible to engineer a structural prop that supports the tree from the underside of its
scaffold branches where they pass over the roof of the addition. Additional guidance on
the applicability of such a prop would require more information about the proposed
structure and collaboration with the project engineer or architect. If such a prop can be
feasibly incorporated into the building design, then the likelihood of failure rating for
Tree 8 could be reduced to improbable over the next three years, and the risk posed by
the tree to the existing structure could be reduced to low.
4) Remove the Tree: Removing either tree would reduce its risk to zero. It would also
eliminate the benefits provided.
5) Prune the Tree: Pruning either tree would not change the likelihood of failure rating, so
the residual risk would not change. Pruning living branches would not improve the health
or condition of either tree, so it is not recommended for purposes of risk reduction.
Pruning may be necessary as part of the construction impact plan, as described in the
Additional Considerations.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 7 of 26
Additional Considerations
If Tree 3 and Tree 8 are chosen to be preserved in the landscape, then they will have to be
assessed for the impact of the proposed construction project on their health and structure.
Tree 3 Construction Impact
Tree 3 is growing far enough from the footprint of the proposed structure that it is unlikely to be
affected by excavation for the footprint of the structure. The plans I was provided did not show
any utility excavation. If utility lines will be excavated, their proximity to the trunk of the tree
should also be assessed.
Another consideration for Tree 3 is the proximity of construction access and materials storage. If
Tree 3 is retained in the landscape, a Tree Protection Fence should be erected around the entire
area within the driveway turnaround because that entire area represents the critical root zone of
the tree. If equipment access and materials storage is limited to the paved area of the driveway,
then impact to the tree is unlikely. However, if materials are stored on the turfgrass or equipment
drives across the turfgrass or ivy, soil compaction could occur, resulting in damage to the tree.
If the tree protection fencing shown in this report is not crossed, then Tree 3 is not likely to be
affected by the proposed construction activity.
Tree 8 Construction Impact
The proposed construction activity will be in close proximity to Tree 8. The footprint of the new
portion of the structure will encroach upon its critical root zone on two sides, likely causing
many of the roots to be cut.
I did not have access to more detailed construction plans, so I do not know the type of foundation
that will be installed. A conventional footing or slab foundation would require severing all the
roots along the edge of the support wall, but a pier-and-beam foundation would minimize the
amount of root disturbance. A pier-and-beam engineered foundation would be preferable. If the
conventional footing or slab foundation is used, then a substantial portion of the root system
would be disrupted.
If significant root disruption of Tree 8 occurs, then it will not likely survive in the long term.
Tree defects are cumulative, so adding the stress of construction to a tree in an already stressed
condition will likely result in its decline over a period of years following construction. If this tree
will be retained in the landscape, the foundation of the proposed structure will need to be
modified to minimize root impacts. Furthermore, all excavation within the dripline would need
to be performed with hand tools only (no heavy machinery or excavators). I would need more
information about the construction plans to make further recommendations on preservation of
this tree.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 8 of 26
There is a sprinkler head within eight feet of the trunk of Tree 8, and there is moss growing on
the brick walkway, indicating irrigation is applied frequently. If Tree 8 is retained, the sprinkler
head nearest to the trunk should be capped off, and no irrigation from any of the other heads
should be applied within 5 feet of the trunk.
As stated in the risk assessment, retaining Tree 8 would require tolerating a moderate risk to the
existing structure within the next three year time frame unless a mitigation action is taken. The
three ways to possibly reduce this risk rating are to perform a higher level of assessment, install a
structural support system as described earlier, or to remove the tree.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 9 of 26
Construction Impact Guidelines
- Tree Protection Fencing:
o Erect tree protection fencing around the dripline of each tree as shown in
Figure 4.
o No construction activity, heavy equipment access, or materials storage should
take place within the tree protection zone during construction without the direct
supervision and approval of a certified arborist.
o Fencing should be made of a sturdy material, at least 4 feet in height, and brightly
colored.
o Support posts for the fencing should either be anchored above grade with
sandbags or similar material or they should be driven into the ground at least five
feet away from any tree trunk.
o Tree trunks should not be wrapped in fencing material, and they should not be
used as support posts for the tree protection fencing.
- Pruning:
o Decide if Tree 8 will be retained or removed. If it is retained, then prune as
follows:
o Hire a crew directly supervised by a certified arborist on site to ensure the pruning
cuts are made to branch unions and do not remove an excessive amount of
foliage. Only prune when deemed necessary by the project arborist; as much live
foliage as possible should be preserved through the construction process to give
the trees the best opportunity to thrive after construction is complete.
o Prune the two lowest scaffold branches on the northwest side of the canopy of
Tree 8 to allow clearance for the proposed structure as needed.
o Deadwood may be removed as it appears on any of the trees. Deadwood pruning
may be performed at any time of year.
- Structural Support:
o Since the prevailing lean of Tree 3 extends over the proposed addition, consider
incorporating a tree-prop into the roof of the structure. Allow collaboration
between the project arborist and the project architect or engineer. Prop should be
constructed with a single contact point drilled into the underside of the scaffold
branch and be affixed to the southwest corner of the addition adjacent to the north
side of Tree 8. Specifications for the support system should be designed in
consultation with the project arborist and project engineer or architect.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 10 of 26
- General Construction Recommendations:
o Inform all construction personnel of the intention to preserve the trees. Many
times damage occurs because workers are not aware of the importance of
preserving the trees on site. This includes contractors and their respective
subcontractors as well.
o If any changes are made to the plans resulting in any new excavation or
equipment access within the dripline of any protected tree, the project arborist
should be informed. Additional protection measures may need to be discussed.
o Throughout the construction period, a certified arborist should make periodic site
visits to ensure the tree protection plan is being followed.
o No construction activity should take place within the tree protection zone. This
includes construction worker access, materials storage, and equipment access.
o If any injury should occur to a protected tree during construction, the project
arborist should be informed within 24 hours so it may be evaluated and treated as
soon as possible.
o No construction materials should cross the tree protection fencing and lean
against any protected tree or be affixed to any protected tree.
o If during any part of the construction phase there is a significant amount of
particulates in the air (from cutting materials or any other activity), a shop
vacuum or equivalent should be used during the cutting or other activity to reduce
the amount of particulates that are deposited on the foliage. If despite a good faith
effort to reduce particulates, a layer is still deposited on the foliage, wash it off
with a jet of water at the end of each construction day where particulates are
deposited.
o During the painting phase, if spray-application of paint is used within the drip line
of the tree, wrap the lower 16 feet of the trunk and scaffold branches of Tree 8
with plastic at the beginning of each painting day to avoid paint drifting onto the
trunk. Remove the plastic at the end of each day to allow for air circulation.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 11 of 26
- Excavation Phase:
o Project arborist should directly supervise all excavation within the drip line of
Tree 8. If roots are encountered, the arborist will be able to determine whether to
preserve or sever them. The arborist should make appropriate severing cuts to
root junctions with a sharp cutting tool.
o Test excavation pits should be hand-dug with shovels where post holes will be
dug within the dripline of Tree 8. If roots larger than 1 inch in diameter are
encountered, the location of the post should be adjusted to the extent feasible in
consultation with the project’s structural engineer. If it is not feasible to avoid the
roots entirely, the project arborist should be consulted to determine the least-
damaging method of installing the post. Since the locations of the roots and type
of foundation are not known at this time, it is not possible to give more specific
guidance regarding the number of roots to be impacted or the exact placement of
the foundation support posts if a post-and-beam foundation is planned.
o When the grade beams are laid around the perimeter of the addition, perform
minimal surface excavation to a depth of no more than four inches using only
hand tools within the dripline of Tree 8. This excavation should be directly
supervised by the project arborist. If roots are encountered, the project arborist
may make the determination of whether they may be severed or whether they
should be encased in 2-4 inches of foam and preserved.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 12 of 26
- Post-Construction Care:
o Retain the leaf drop around the root zone of the subject trees where practical. The
best ground cover for a tree is its own leaf mulch. Leaf mulch will continue to
reduce soil evaporation and mitigate soil temperature changes. If leaf drop is not
practical for use, apply a layer of coarse mulch 2-4 inches thick around the base of
each protected tree, where practical.
o All irrigation line trenches within the dripline of any protected tree should be
hand-dug. If significant roots measuring one inch in diameter or larger are
encountered, the project arborist should be consulted. If practical, tunnel
underneath the roots to preserve them.
o No irrigation should spray within five feet of the trunk of a Coast Live Oak tree.
o Retain the tree protection zone fencing until construction activity has been
completed or until the landscape installation phase begins. Even when landscapers
are permitted near the trees, make sure they are aware of the intention to preserve
the trees and the roots if any digging is performed for irrigation lines or plant
installation.
o The subject trees should be monitored annually by a certified arborist for
development of disease, decay, or other symptoms of stress due to construction
activity. Deadwood may be removed as it appears, and as much live wood as
possible should be retained on the trees, provided that it doesn’t come into
conflict with the infrastructure.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 13 of 26
Glossary of Terms
Consequences of impact: The amount of damage or harm caused by a tree or tree part failing
and impacting a target. It may be personal injury, property damage, or
disruption of an activity.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Severe: Hospitalization or death of a person, or property damage over
$20,000.
2) Significant: Personal injury that does not require professional medical
care, or property damage costing less than $20,000 to repair.
3) Minor: Very minor personal injury, or property damage costing less
than $1,000 to repair.
4) Negligible: Property damage that can be easily repaired. No personal
injury.
Extreme Weather: Based on the 30-year historical average weather for the site, extreme
weather is uncommon weather events that fall outside the range of storms
and wind ordinarily expected to occur within the time frame.
Likelihood of failure: The chance that a tree or tree part could fall within a specified time frame.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Imminent: Without regard to the assessed time frame, the tree or tree
part is about to fail or has already started to fail.
2) Probable: Within the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part may
fail in ordinary weather conditions.
3) Possible: Within the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part may fail
in extreme weather. It is unlikely to fail in normal weather.
4) Improbable: Within the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part may
not fail, even in extreme weather.
Likelihood of impact: The chance that the subject tree would impact the target if it were to fail.
This is primarily determined by the occupancy rate of the targets, the
direction of the tree’s fall, and any potential protection factors.
There are four possible ratings:
1) High: If the tree or tree part were to fail, it may be expected to impact
the target.
2) Medium: If the tree or tree part were to fail, it may impact the target,
but it is not expected to do so.
3) Low: If the tree or tree part were to fail, there would be a slight chance
of impacting the target.
4) Very Low: If the tree or tree part were to fail, the chance of impacting
the target is remote.
Mobile target: A target that is constantly moving or stopping intermittently. Such targets
include people, animals, bicycles, and vehicles.
Movable target: A target that may be relocated as a mitigation strategy.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 14 of 26
Normal weather: Based on the 30-year historical average of weather for a given location,
including all ordinary storms and wind that may be expected to occur
within a given time frame.
Occupancy rate: The amount of time that a mobile target is present in the target zone. There
are four possible ratings:
1) Constant: Within the assessed time frame, the target is always or
nearly always present in the target zone, 20-24 hours per day.
2) Frequent: Within the assessed time frame, the target is present in the
target zone for a large portion of the day, month, week, or year,
averaging 4-20 hours per day.
3) Occasional: Within the assessed time frame, the target is infrequently
or intermittently present in the target zone, averaging 0.25-4 hours per
day.
4) Rare: Within the assessed time frame, the target is present in the target
zone for a very small portion of time, averaging 0.25 hours per day or
less.
Risk Rating: The combination of likelihood of failure, likelihood of impact, and
consequences of impact.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Extreme: access to the target zone should be restricted immediately
and mitigation should take place as soon as possible.
2) High: mitigation should take place as soon as practical.
3) Moderate: mitigation should take place as soon as pruning cycle
allows.
4) Low: The risk may be mitigated as pruning cycle allows, or the tree
may be retained and monitored.
Static Target: A target that does not move. It is present in 24 hours per day, seven days
per week. Building and landscape fixtures are considered fixed targets.
Target: A person that could be injured, property being damaged, or activities that
could be disrupted by a failure of a tree or tree part.
Target zone: The area in which a tree or tree part can reasonably be expected to fall if it
were to fail.
Time frame: The period of time over which the likelihood of failure is assessed. Time
frame is often one year, but it may be modified to meet the needs of the
client. For this assignment, I used a time frame of three years.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 15 of 26
Limitations
I relied upon information regarding the site and the subject trees provided to me. For purposes of
this report, I assumed all of the information I was provided to be true. If any of the information
provided to me is found to be inaccurate, the conclusions in this report may be invalidated. I did
not have access to detailed plans for the proposed construction; information contained in these
plans may affect my recommendations on the feasibility of tree preservation.
I only made observations of and recommendations pertaining to Tree 3 and Tree 8. No other
trees were assessed for risk. My recommendations only apply to Tree 3 and Tree 8; there may be
additional considerations that would be applicable to the other trees on the subject property.
My observations are based on a strictly visual inspection of the property, and some hidden or
buried symptoms and signs may not have been observed. I did not conduct excavation, coring, or
aerial inspection to make observations. Specialty arborists would be needed to conduct root
crown inspections and extent-of-decay analysis on the trees, if these additional inspections are
desired.
Although the condition of the trees will change throughout the year, my analysis is only based on
the observations I gathered at the time of inspection. I do not guarantee the safety, health, or
condition of the trees. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or
deficiencies in the trees may not arise in the future.
Arborists are tree specialists who use their knowledge, education, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce the risk of living trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of
the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways not fully understood. Conditions are often hidden
within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe
under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any
medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the
arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between
neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless
complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be
expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree
of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 16 of 26
Conclusion
I agree with the observations made by the McKinley report: Tree 3 has symptoms of
Phytophthora, and Tree 8 has missing bark at the base of the tree. I disagree with his assessment
of the risk posed and his determination that both trees must be removed.
The risk posed by Tree 3 failing and impacting vehicles, people, the house, or an adjacent tree
within the next three year time frame is low. The risk posed by Tree 8 failing and impacting the
house within the next three year time frame is moderate. The risk posed by Tree 8 failing and
impacting a person within the next three year time frame is low.
Evaluate the risk/benefit tradeoff before considering either of the subject trees for removal. If
they are retained in the landscape, I recommend a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor regularly re-
inspect them every 1-3 years. If these trees are retained in the landscape through construction, I
advise following the construction impact recommendations listed in this report.
If you have further questions, feel free to give me a call or email.
James Komen
Board Certified Master Arborist #WE-9909B
Registered Consulting Arborist #555
Class One Arboriculture Inc.
818-495-5344
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Photos a
Figure 1
the likeli
Figure 2
impact an
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
and Figures
: Risk asses
hood of imp
2: Risk asses
nd the conse
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
sment matrix
pacting the ta
sment matrix
equences of i
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
x (1 of 2). T
arget.
x (2 of 2). T
impact.
his matrix sy
his matrix sy
ynthesizes th
ynthesizes th
he likelihood
he likelihood
Page 17
d of failure a
d of failure &
of 26
and
&
111 Hacienda Dr. – TREE RISK ASSESSMENT
James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc.
August 10, 2018 Page 18 of 26
Figure 3: Summary table of each permutation of target and tree part in the risk assessment. Tree #Species Tree PartLikelihoodof FailureTargetLikelihoodof ImpactConsequences Risk RatingNotes3Quercus agrifoliaWhole Tree Possible Vehicle Medium Significant Low vehicles have frequent occupancy rate3Quercus agrifoliaWhole Tree Possible Pedestrian Low Severe Low pedestrians have occasional occupancy rate3Quercus agrifoliaWhole Tree Possible House Very Low Significant Lowhouse not within target zone of 1x tree height3Quercus agrifoliaWhole Tree PossibleAnother landscape tree High Minor Lowif failure were to occur, another landscape tree would likely be impacted because they exist in all directions8Quercus agrifoliaWhole Tree Possible Pedestrian Low Severe Low pedestrians have occasional occupancy rate8Quercus agrifoliaWhole Tree Possible House High Significant Moderateif failure were to occur, the house would likely be impacted due to expected direction of fall
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 4
TPZ fenc
considere
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
4: Site map sh
cing only add
ed in this rep
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
howing the T
dresses Tree
port as part o
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
Tree Protect
e 3 and Tree
of my scope
tion Zone fen
8. No other
of work.
ncing recom
trees on the
mmended in t
e subject prop
Page 19
this report. T
perty were
of 26
This
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 5
Phytopht
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
5: Looking no
thora infecti
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
orth at Tree
on. The tree
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
3. It has ext
e is growing
ensive sap e
in an ivy bed
exudation alo
d bordered b
ong the trunk
by an irrigate
Page 20
k, symptoms
ed lawn.
of 26
s of a
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 6
seven fee
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
6: Closer ima
et of the trun
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
age of the tru
nk.
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
unk of Tree 33 showing mmany sap exuudation sites
Page 21
s within the l
of 26
lower
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 7
in the cen
depth of
tissue tha
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
7: I sounded t
nter sounded
about 1 inch
at is adding t
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
the north sec
d hollow. I p
h. The brown
to the streng
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
ction of the t
probed below
n-colored sw
gth of the trun
trunk with a
w the bark an
welling at the
nk.
rubber mall
nd found hea
e lower right
let. The sunk
artwood degr
t is new resp
Page 22
ken area of b
radation to a
ponse growth
of 26
bark
a
h
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 8
(brownis
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
8: Looking so
h color) can
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
outhwest at t
n be seen add
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
the northeast
ding to the st
t section of t
trength of th
the trunk. M
he tree.
More respons
Page 23
e growth
of 26
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 9
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
9: Looking no
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
orthwest at T
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
Tree 3. This tree has a prrevailing leaan to the nor
Page 24
rthwest.
of 26
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 1
proximity
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
0: The brick
y to the trun
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
k patio near T
k (corner of
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
Tree 8 is cov
f walkway, le
vered in mos
eft).
ss. There is aa sprinkler h
Page 25
head in close
of 26
e
111 Haci
James Ko
August 1
Figure 1
soil to a d
level of i
enda Dr. – T
omen, Class
0, 2018
1: A portion
depth of 2 in
inspection w
TREE RISK AS
One Arboric
n of bark is m
nches and I d
would be requ
SSESSMENT
culture Inc.
missing from
did not detec
uired to dete
m the northw
ct buttress ro
rmine the ex
west side of th
oots on this s
xtent of the r
he root crow
side of the tru
root system o
Page 26
wn. I probed
runk. A high
of the tree.
of 26
the
er
Attachment No. 6
Attachment No. 6
Santa Anita Oaks ARB Findings and Action
Form and Minutes of the April 26, 2018
ARB Meeting
Attachment No. 7
Attachment No. 7
Comments for TRH 18-09
Attachment No. 8
Attachment No. 8
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
Preliminary Exemption Assessment FORM “A”
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: A healthy protected tree removal permit No. TRH 18-09 for the
removal of five (5) healthy Oak trees and two (2) diseased oak
trees, to accommodate a new single-family residence at 111
Hacienda Drive
2. Project Location – Identify street
address and cross streets or
attach a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15’ or 7 1/2’
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
111 Hacienda Drive, Arcadia, CA 91006 (between Rodeo Rd.
and Santa Anita Ave.)
3. Entity or person undertaking
project:
A.
B. Other (Private) Ramy Zaifman
(1) Name Ramy Zaifman
(2) Address 27 Tanners Road
Great Neck, NY 11020
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency’s Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental
assessment because:
a. The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. The project is an Emergency Project.
d. The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: Sections 15303(a) (Class 1, New Construction of
One Single-Family Home)
f. The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. The project is otherwise
exempt on the following basis:
h. The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date: June 20, 2018 Staff: Peter Sun, Associate Planner