No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArborist Report1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 1 of 31 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report Prepared for Li Han 1203 Highland Oaks Arcadia, CA 91006 Prepared by James Komen BCMA WE-9909B RCA #555 Class One Arboriculture 3763 Ramsdell Ave Glendale, CA 91214 818-495-5344 classonearboriculture@gmail.com August 27, 2018 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 31 Table of Contents Summary 3 Background and Assignment 4 Observations and Discussion 5 Appraisal Methodology 8 Other Appraisal Methods 11 Subject Trees 12 Limits of Assignment 18 Works Cited 18 Appraisal Calculations 19 Site Map 22 Site Photos 23 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 3 of 31 Summary Five protected trees and one additional tree were heavily pruned on July 15, 2018 at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive. A notice of violation was issued by the City of Arcadia for failure to obtain a permit to perform the pruning. I was asked to prepare an appraisal of the damage to the trees by using the Reproduction Cost Trunk Formula Technique as outlined in the Guide for Plant Appraisal. I appraised the Pre-Loss cost solution for the five protected trees to be $51,900. I appraised the Post-Loss cost solution for the trees to be $19,000. This reflects a diminution of $32,900 resulting from the pruning event on July 15, 2018. I was also asked to determine whether each of the trees should be retained or removed. All six of the subject trees can be retained in the landscape at this time, despite their significantly diminished condition. Continued annual monitoring is the recommended management strategy at this time. No further action is recommended to improve their likelihood of survival until they have time to regrow foliage mass. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 4 of 31 Background I was contacted by Harry Wang on August 10, 2018. He told me that Li Han had received a citation from the City of Arcadia for a violation of the tree protection ordinance. To respond to the request of the City of Arcadia, Harry asked me to prepare an arborist report documenting the condition of six trees that had been pruned. I subsequently spoke with Lisa Flores, Planning & Community Development Administrator with the City of Arcadia about the scope of the report. Lisa asked for an evaluation of the condition of each of the six trees, including recommendations of whether the trees could be salvaged or should be removed. Lisa also asked for an appraisal of the damage according to the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, per 9703.01.010 (C) (2) (c) of the City of Arcadia Tree Protection Ordinance. I visited the property on August 10, 2018 at 4:15pm to collect data for this report. To obtain pre- loss condition ratings, I referenced Google Maps Street View images taken in December of 2017 of the subject property. Harry met me on site and translated for property owner Li Han. Harry explained to me that prior to the pruning event on July 15, 2018, Li was concerned about Trees 5 and 6 touching the power lines along the western property line and starting a fire. Li noted the branches of Tree 4 reached over the roof of the house, and she was concerned about both fire safety and the risk of whole tree failure, saying the tree was “too tall.” She was pleased with the inexpensive estimate she received from one tree trimming company. The estimator from that company also offered to perform similar pruning on Trees 1, 2, and 3 at a low cost, so she accepted their offer. Shortly after the pruning, a notice of violation was issued by the City of Arcadia on July 26, 2018. The 10th Edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal was published and released for the public in 2018. My appraisal in this report utilizes this most recent edition of the guide. The most notable changes to the Trunk Formula Technique from the 9th edition of the Guide are the changing of the depreciation rating classifications. The ratings of species, location, and condition from the 9th edition of the Guide were replaced with ratings of condition, functional limitations, and external limitations in the 10th edition of the Guide to align with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). In this report, I provided a brief narrative of my justification for each rating I assigned to each tree. I originally prepared and submitted this report on August 13, 2018. I was later contacted by Jordan Chamberlin of the City of Arcadia on August 27, 2018. She asked me to make several changes to the report, including removal of the appraisal of Tree 3 (a non-protected tree) for clarity and organizational purposes. None of the changes in this version have a substantial effect on the conclusions in this report. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 5 of 31 Observations and Discussion Five protected trees and one additional tree growing along the front and side yard setbacks at 1203 Highland Oaks Drive were heavily pruned on July 15, 2018. The leading stems were pruned using “heading” or “topping” cuts. This pruning was not performed according to the Best Management Practices (BMP) for pruning as published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). The BMP for pruning requires the minimum amount of foliage be removed to achieve a given objective. Homeowner Li Han stated three objectives for the pruning that I will address separately: - Fire Safety from Electrical Lines: Trees 5 and 6 were the stated catalysts for the pruning event on July 15, 2018. As seen in the pre-loss images of the trees from the street view, these trees were not in contact with the power lines at the time of the pruning. The utility company that manages the power lines has the responsibility of maintaining safe clearance of all vegetation near the lines. A homeowner would be expected to check with the utility company prior to engaging a tree company to prune. Trimming of tree branches in conflict with power lines are most often performed by the utility company at no expense to the homeowner. The minimum amount of pruning to achieve the objective of line clearance was determined by the utility company. The minimum amount of pruning required by the homeowner to achieve this objective was zero pruning because the utility company had determined that the trees were adequately pruned for clearance at their most recent inspection. Because the pruning event on July 15, 2018 removed more foliage than required (zero required pruning), it was not performed according to the BMP for pruning. - Mitigation of Risk of Failure: Li expressed her concern about the risk posed by Tree 4 impacting the house. She said it was “too tall,” so she concluded it was unsafe. It does not necessarily follow that if a tree is tall it is likely to fail. Trees can be both large and structurally sound. Furthermore, although this was a mature specimen tree, it was not unusually large for the species. From the pre-loss images and from my site inspection, I did not observe any significant structural defects on Tree 4. Its lateral branches were well attached to the main stem. They had a normal lateral spread that would be expected of this species. Immediately prior to the pruning, I would have rated the likelihood of whole tree failure of Tree 4 as improbable over the next three year time frame, resulting in a low overall risk rating according to the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ) Methodology. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 6 of 31 Pruning branches off Tree 4 would not have changed its risk rating, so the July 15, 2018 pruning did not achieve the objective of risk reduction. The pruning was not only unnecessary, but also damaging to the tree. - Reduction of Nuisance Leaf Drop: Historically, leaf drop has not been held as a private nuisance. A homeowner is reasonably expected to incur expenses of cleaning leaf drop from trees, plants, and shrubs in an outdoor setting. It has historically been held that municipalities can use tree protection ordinances to restrict removal or pruning of trees based solely upon reduction of leaf drop. Prevention of all leaf drop would require removal of all trees. Such an outcome has historically not been considered reasonable by municipalities in Southern California. Harry pointed out several branches on Tree 6 and told me that they were dead at the time of pruning. He explained the pruning of Tree 6 removed mostly dead branches and did not remove a substantial amount of live tissue. The branch wounds that Harry pointed out had milky sap exuding from the xylem tissue at the pruning cuts. The presence of sap indicates these branches were not completely compartmentalized off from the tree, so they were still alive at the time of pruning. Furthermore, there were many small watersprouts beginning to emerge from the trunk and remaining scaffold branches of Tree 6. The only way these sprouts could be emerging was if these sections of the tree were still alive. If the objective of pruning Tree 6 was to remove dead branches, then an excessive amount of living tissue was removed to achieve that objective, thereby contradicting the BMP for pruning. Harry and Li did not communicate a clear objective for pruning Trees 1-3. Their stated reason for pruning them was they were offered a good price to cut them as an additional service by the tree trimming company that performed the pruning on Trees 4-6. Trees 1-3 were not near a structure. They were not near power lines. Harry did not point out dead branches in these trees. It appears the objective for pruning these trees was limited to achieving an aesthetic goal of crown reduction. The July 15, 2018 reduction of size was damaging to the health, structure, and form of each of these three trees. The stated Intent and Purpose of the Tree Protection Ordinance stated in 9701.01.010 is to “create favorable conditions for the preservation and propagation of irreplaceable plant heritage for the benefit of the current and future residents [emphasis added].” The pruning that was performed to these three trees was unfavorable to their preservation, and was therefore a violation of the intent of the Tree Protection Ordinance. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 7 of 31 All six trees can be retained in the landscape. They each are showing evidence of having sufficient stored energy to potentially re-grow a canopy. All six of the trees will have a permanently damaged structure, but Trees 2 and 3 have the highest likelihood of being restored to natural form. Trees 1, 4, 5, and 6 may re-grow a new canopy from watersprouts, but these shoots will be weakly attached to their respective parent stems, resulting in a higher likelihood of branch failure in the future. Restoration management in the future for these trees will be significantly more costly and time consuming than if they had not been pruned so aggressively. No pruning is recommended at this time because the biggest limiting factor for each of the trees is the lack of foliage. The trees must be allowed to re-grow a substantial amount of foliage before they can be pruned to train for structure. I estimate it will be 2-3 years before pruning will be recommended. Between now and then, I recommend continued annual monitoring by a Certified Arborist. Trees 1 and 4 are protected trees because Platanus racemosa is explicitly named as a protected species in the City of Arcadia. The ordinance designates Platanus racemosa larger than 4 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) as protected trees. Trees 1 and 4 are larger than 4 inches DBH, so they are therefore protected by ordinance. The ordinance also protects trees all species not found on the Unprotected Tree list that have a single stem larger than 12 inches DBH or at least two stems larger than 10 inches DBH. Trees 2, 5, and 6 are protected because Platanus x hispanica and Fraxinus velutina are not found on the Unprotected Tree list and each of these trees has a trunk diameter that exceeds 12 inches DBH. Tree 3 is neither explicitly named as a protected species nor listed on the Unprotected Tree list. It has two trunks measuring 7.6 inches and 6.7 inches in diameter. Since neither trunk is larger than 10 inches in diameter, Tree 3 is not protected by ordinance. It is common to mistake Fraxinus uhdei for Fraxinus velutina and vice versa in the field. The key difference between the two species is F. uhdei is evergreen and F. velutina is deciduous. This is an important distinction in the City of Arcadia because F. uhdei is on the list of Unprotected Trees and F. velutina is not. Trees 5 and 6 are dormant in the Google Maps image from December 2017, indicating they are the deciduous species. Since Trees 5 and 6 are F. velutina and are larger than 12 inches DBH, they are protected by ordinance. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 8 of 31 Appraisal Methodology The approach I took for appraising the subject trees was the cost approach. Because the subject trees are larger than the largest commonly available transplantable tree, I deemed it appropriate to use an extrapolation formula to appraise the cost of procuring it, even if no comparable tree is available for sale. One of the reproduction cost method techniques provided in The Guide to Plant Appraisal 10th edition is the Trunk Formula Technique of appraisal, abbreviated here: The theory of the Trunk Formula Technique is to scale up the cost of the largest commonly available transplantable tree relative to the total cross sectional area of the tree trunk. The unit cost per square inch of nursery stock is calculated for the Largest Commonly Available Nursery Tree (LCANT), and it is multiplied by the cross sectional area of the subject tree being appraised. This is the basic reproduction cost of the tree. It represents the cost to reproduce a defect-free copy of the tree with one of the same size and species. After calculating the basic cost of the tree, depreciating factors are introduced. Since hand- selected nursery stock is in theory the best quality, the basic cost must be adjusted downward by a Condition rating to reflect any defects in health, structure, and form. The Condition rating is a subjective rating between 0% and 100% as determined by the appraising arborist. Guidance is given as a framework for general ratings in Table 4.1 of the Guide for Plant Appraisal 10th Edition (CTLA 2018, p. 44). Functional Limitations reflect the features of the tree/site interaction that restrict or constrain growth or function due to poor placement or size. External Limitations reflect restrictions to the tree involving legal, biological, or environmental conditions external to the property (CTLA 2018, p. 9). Functional Limitations and External Limitations are also subjective ratings ranging between 0% and 100% as determined by the appraising arborist, with similar guidance provided. The final appraised Trunk Formula Technique Reproduction Cost of the tree is the product of the total cross sectional area, the unit cost of trunk area, and the three depreciating factors: Condition, Functional Limitations, and External Limitations. I appraised each of the six subject trees before and after the pruning, then I took the difference between the cost solutions to determine the amount of damage. See the appraisal table at the end of this report for detailed calculations. Trunk Area First, the diameter of the subject trunk is measured. The height of the measurement is conventionally made at 4.5 feet above natural grade. If the subject tree has multiple trunks, the diameter of each individual trunk is measured. The cross sectional area (A) is calculated by the formula A = π/4 d2. Then the cross sectional area of each trunk is added together to arrive at the total trunk cross sectional area. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 9 of 31 Unit Cost The unit cost of nursery stock is published in the Western Chapter ISA Regional Species Classification Guide, and it varies based on the growth rate of the tree and its trunk size in various box sizes. This unit cost is expressed in dollars per square inch of trunk cross sectional area. Platanus racemosa and Platanus x hispanica are from Nursery Group 3 in Southern California, having a unit cost of $62 per square inch of trunk area. Fraxinus velutina is from Nursery Group 4 in Southern California, having a unit cost of $45 per square inch of trunk area. The WCISA Regional Guide was most recently published in 2004. One of its weaknesses is it has not been adjusted for inflation and current market pricing. As an alternative to using the published values in the guide, a more detailed analysis of the unit cost could be performed at a much greater expense: wholesale nursery pricing catalogs from many growers can be obtained and analyzed for size and price information to determine a more accurate unit cost. Due to budget and time limitations, that additional level of research was not undertaken for this appraisal report. Condition Rating Condition has three subcomponents: health, structure, and form. Health rates the attributes that limit the ability of the tree to undergo the processes of photosynthesis, including attributes of the vascular system, leaf density, wound closure, insect infestation, and abiotic disorders. Structure is the ability of the tree to support itself from falling or breaking apart. Form describes the tree’s habit, shape, or silhouette as it develops from the interaction between the tree’s genetics, site, and management. Health, Structure, and Form are subjectively rated on a scale of 0% to 100% by the appraising arborist. Since some attributes hold a greater relevance in determining the condition of a tree than other attributes, the arborist is given further discretion to assign a relative weighting of importance to each of these three factors. My justification for each respective tree’s pre- and post-loss depreciation ratings are provided in the following section. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 10 of 31 Functional Limitations and External Limitations Functional Limitations reflect the restriction on tree growth or intended use in the landscape based on the interaction of site and species. Trees 1-4 did not have any significant functional limitations, so they received ratings of 100%. Trees 5 and 6 are rated as 50% species for Southern California Coastal Influence in the Western Chapter Regional Species Classification Guide. However, Trees 5 and 6 are well-placed for the intended function of shading the back yard from the southern and western sun. I rated the Functional Limitations for Trees 5 and 6 as 80%. External Limitations are the restrictions on tree growth or intended use with respect to attributes outside the control of the property owner. Known fatal pests, drought restrictions, invasive species status, and utility easement conflict are all examples of external limitations. None of these six trees have any of these limitations. All six are protected species by ordinance, and they are all tolerant of the allowable irrigation per local drought restrictions. Trees 5 and 6 are growing adjacent to power lines, but not close enough that the necessary power line clearance pruning would limit their function, structure, or form. I assigned an External Limitations rating of 100% to each of the six trees. The Functional Limitations and External Limitations of each of the respective trees did not change as result of the pruning. Appraised Cost Solution The basic cost is then multiplied by the Condition, Functional Limitations, and External Limitations ratings. The calculated amount is then rounded to reflect the level of precision in the appraisal. If the amount is less than $5000, then it is rounded to the nearest $10. If the amount is greater than $5000, then it is rounded to the nearest $100. The rounded amount is the final appraised cost solution by using the Reproduction Cost Method, Trunk Formula Technique. I appraised the pre-loss cost solution for the five protected trees to be $51,900. I appraised the post-loss cost solution for the five trees to be $19,000. This reflects a total diminution in value to the five protected trees of $32,900 resulting from the pruning event on July 15, 2018. 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 11 of 31 Other Appraisal Methods The City of Arcadia Tree Protection Ordinance 9703.01.010 (C) (2) (c) requires valuation according to the “tree evaluation formula.” The formula mentioned in the ordinance refers to the Trunk Formula Technique described in the 10th Edition Guide for Plant Appraisal, so I did not use any other methods of tree appraisal. I did not research the cost to procure a direct replacement of the subject tree. I did not calculate the present value of the income generated by the benefits provided by the tree. I did not calculate the difference in market value of the subject property before and after the loss. Because I only used one method of appraisal, I did not include a reconciliation section in this report. 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Subject T The follo subject tr after the ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 Trees owing section rees. Ratings July 15, 201 Tree Appra One Arbori n provides ju s and justific 18 pruning ev aisal Report iculture Inc. ustification f cation are giv vent. Tree 1 Platanus ra Pre-Loss: The health of was minor di healthy in De was taken, in common foli The structure minor co-dom Around the c union was no unlikely to fa The form wa the south, bu compromised Post-Loss: The health of result of the r re-sprouting from which t The structure were made on likely turn in in the long te scaffold, incr The form of t severe prunin intended use not choose a function in th for each of t ven for the c acemosa – C f the tree was G ieback at the tip ecember of 201 ndicating the tr ar fungus Anth e was Good. Th minant stem de co-dominant ste ot a significant ail in normal ex as Good. There ut overall, the fu d as a specimen f the tree is now removal of 90% beginning alre to draw, and it e of the tree is n n the scaffold b nto decay sites, erm. Re-growth reasing likeliho the tree is now ng. The prunin of an aesthetic rating of Very he landscape, a the respectiv condition of California Sy Good. It had no p of the canopy 17 when the G ree was not sign hracnose. here was a wel efect at a heigh em union was structural con xpected weathe e was a minor a function and ae n landscape as w Fair. It has s % of the living eady, indicating still has some now Poor. Mu branches and t significantly l h sprouts will b ood of branch f w Poor. It now ng detracts to a c specimen tree Poor because albeit significan ve condition each tree bo ycamore ormal vigor for y. The foliage Google Maps St nificantly affec ll-developed st ht of approxima ample respons cern. The co-d er conditions. asymmetrical d esthetics of the set. significantly re g foliage. I obse g the tree has e vigor. ultiple significa trunk. These he limiting the stru be weakly attac failure. has an abnorm significant deg e and screening the tree still d ntly limited. Page 12 ratings for th oth before an r the speices. T was still green treet View ima cted by the tructure with a ately 15 feet. se growth, so th dominant union deviation towar tree were not educed vigor as erved evidence energy reserves ant topping cut eading cuts wil ucture of the tr ched to the mal form due to gree from the t g from street. I oes provide so of 31 he nd There n and age his n was rds s a e of s ts ll ree o tree’s I did ome 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 Tree Appra One Arbori aisal Report iculture Inc. Tree 2 Platanus x Pre-Loss: The health of was evidence common Ant amount of An grow, it just d growing seas The structure about four fe it was unlike The form wa it was mostly Post-Loss: The health of result of the l The structure topping cuts with several The form of t has been com x acerifolia – f the tree was G e in the Google thracnose folia nthracnose infe detracted from son when the le e was Fair. The eet. There is am ly to fail in nor as Good. There y consistent wi f the tree is now loss of more th e of the tree is n on the scaffold years of restor the tree is now mpromised as a – London Pla Good. Vigor w e Maps Street V ar fungus causin fection did not n m the aesthetic a eaves began to ere is a co-dom mple response g rmal weather c e were minor de ith its intended w Fair. It has a han 50% of its now Fair. The d branches. Th ration pruning m w Fair. Its aesth a result of the t anetree was normal for View image of ng minor twig negatively affe appearance of o turn brown. minant stem de growth joining conditions befo eviations from d landscape use a significantly living foliage. ere are now mu he tree has the p management. hetic function a opping. Page 13 the species. Th f a history of dieback. This ect tree’s abilit the tree late in fect at a height g the two stems ore the pruning m species norm, e. reduced vigor ultiple moderat potential to rec as a specimen t of 31 here ty to the t of s, so g. , but as a e cover tree 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 Tree Appra One Arbori aisal Report iculture Inc. Tree 3 Platanus x This tree is n larger than 10 report. x acerifolia – not protected by 0 inches in dia – London Pla y ordinance be ameter. It was n anetree ecause neither o not appraised a Page 14 of its two trunk as part of this of 31 ks is 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 Tree Appra One Arbori aisal Report iculture Inc. Tree 4 Platanus ra Pre-Loss: The health of common Ant minor bark b the conductiv View image vigor for spe The structure from a forme for constructi lean was wel tree is leanin The form wa due to photot function and lean. Post-Loss: The health of result of the r re-sprouting from which t The structure were made on turn into deca long term. Re increasing lik The form of t severe prunin intended use not choose a function in th acemosa – C f the tree was F thracnose folia beetle activity in vity of water al from Decembe cies. e was Good. It er neighboring ion of the hous ll within the tol g does not mea as Good. There tropism away f aesthetics of th f the tree is now removal of 90% beginning alre to draw and stil e of the tree is n n scaffold bran ay sites, signifi e-growth sprou kelihood of bra the tree is now ng. The prunin of an aesthetic rating of Very he landscape, a California Sy Fair. It had a p ar fungus and m n the trunk, bu long the stem. er 2017, the tre had a minor pr tree that was r se. Although T lerable range f an that it is like e was minor asy from former ne he tree were no w Fair. It has a % of its living eady, indicating ll has some vig now Poor. Mu nches and trunk ficantly limiting uts will be wea anch failure. w Poor. It now ng detracts to a c specimen tree Poor because albeit significan ycamore pre-existing his minor dieback a ut it did not app From the Goo ee had a dense revailing lean t removed betwe Tree 4 was lean for this species ely to fail. ymmetrical dis eighboring Syc ot compromise a significantly foliage. I obse g the tree has e gor. ultiple significa k. These headi g the structure akly attached to has an abnorm significant deg e and screening the tree still d ntly limited. Page 15 story of the at tips. I observ pear to be affec gle Maps Stree canopy and no to southwest, a een 2012 and 2 ning, the degree . Just because stribution of fo camore tree. Th ed by its prevai reduced vigor erved evidence energy reserves ant topping cut ing cuts will lik of the tree in t o the scaffold, mal form due to gree from the t g from street. I oes provide so of 31 ved cting et ormal away 2017 e of a oliage he iling as a of s ts kely the o tree’s I did ome 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 Tree Appra One Arbori aisal Report iculture Inc. Tree 5 Fraxinus v Pre-Loss: The health of deadwood pr conclusion w period. It is p image. The structure species. Co-d in this specie The form wa species. The intended use Post-Loss: The health of unhealthy an low foliage d The structure corrected, ev sprouting wil increased lik The form of t intended func topping has l velutina – Ar f the tree was G resent in the ca was based on a possible that de e was Good. It dominant stem es. as Excellent. Th crown was sym of shading the f the tree is now nd declining app density after 99 e of the tree is n ven with restora ll be weakly at elihood of failu the tree is now ction of shadin left the tree vis rizona Ash Good. It had m anopy, but over pre-loss image eadwood could had a normal v unions are kno he form of the mmetrical, and e rear yard from w Poor. The se pearance for th 9% of its canop now Poor. The ation pruning o ttached to the p ure. w Very Poor. Th ng the rear yard sually unappeal minor tip diebac rall normal vig e of the tree du d have been ob vase-shaped st own defects th tree was nearly d the tree was c m the southern evere topping e he tree. The tre py was remove e severe toppin over a period o parent stems an he tree no long d from southern ling. Page 16 ck and some gor. This uring its dorman scured in the tructure for the hat tend to deve y ideal for the consistent with and western su event resulted ee now has a ve ed. ng cannot be of years. Re- nd will have an ger provides its n sun. The sev of 31 ncy elop h its un. in an ery n s ere 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 Tree Appra One Arbori aisal Report iculture Inc. Tree 6 Fraxinus v Pre-Loss: The health of Dead branch slightly reduc The structure out from und observed sev 2017 Google The form wa and competit Post-Loss: The health of unhealthy an density after The structure corrected, ev sprouting wil increased lik The form of t intended func topping has l velutina – Ar f the tree was F es were presen ced by the com e was Fair. Its der Tree 5 caus veral weakly att e Maps Street V as Fair. The cro tion with Tree f the tree is now nd declining app 90% of the can e of the tree is n ven with restora ll be weakly at elihood of failu the tree is now ction of shadin left the tree vis rizona Ash Fair. It was par nt in the canopy mpetition with i phototropic re sed the tree to h ttached and han View image. own was asym 5. w Poor. The se pearance for th nopy was remo now Poor. The ation pruning o ttached to the p ure. w Very Poor. Th ng the rear yard sually unappeal rtially suppres y. Overall, vigo its neighbor. esponse growth have a prevailin nging branches mmetrical due to evere topping r he tree. There i oved. e severe toppin over a period o parent stems an he tree no long d from southern ling. Page 17 sed by Tree 5. or was only h towards the w ng lean. I also s in the Decem o overcrowding resulted in an is low foliage ng cannot be of years. Re- nd will have an ger provides its n sun. The sev of 31 west mber g n s ere 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 18 of 31 Limits of Assignment My investigation was limited to above-ground observations of the subject tree and the surrounding site. My investigation was based solely upon my site inspection and on images obtained from Google Maps Street View. No excavation was performed. All of the information provided to me regarding the history of the site and the subject tree was assumed to be true. If any information is found to be false, the conclusions in this report may be invalidated. This report is not a risk assessment, nor does it provide any estimates for the cost of remedies. My expertise in this matter is limited to arboriculture, and this report is not intended to be legal advice. I do not guarantee the safety, health, or condition of the subject tree. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies in the subject tree 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 we do not fully understand. 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. 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. Works Cited Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. ©2018 CTLA. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. A Regional Supplement to the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal. ©2004 by WC-ISA 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 19 of 31 Appraisal Calculations Figure 1: Trunk Formula Technique appraisal calculations for Trees 1-2. Note that Tree 3 is not protected by ordinance, so the cost solution of the damage done to the tree was not included in the final total of this appraisal assignment. Tree 1: Platanus racemosa Measurement Source Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Difference ADBH Field Measurement 19.7 in 19.7 in B Trunk Area of Subject Tree π * (A/2)2 305 in² 305 in² CUnit Cost WCISA Regional Guide 62.00$          62.00$           DBasic Tree Cost B*C 18,897.92$  18,897.92$   E Condition Rating Arborist Opinion 80% 28% F Functional Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% GExternal Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% H Depreciated Cost D*E*F*G 15,118.34$  5,291.42$     IFinal Appraised Cost Solution Round to nearest $1000 15,000.00$  5,000.00$    10,000.00$    Tree 2: Platanus x hispanica Measurement Source Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Difference ADBH Field Measurement 10.2 in 10.2 in B Trunk Area  of Subject Tree π * (A/2)2 82 in² 82 in² CUnit Cost WCISA Regional Guide 62.00$          62.00$           DBasic Tree Cost B*C 5,066.20$    5,066.20$     E Condition Rating Arborist Opinion 71% 44% F Functional Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% GExternal Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% H Depreciated Cost D*E*F*G 3,597.00$    2,213.93$     IFinal Appraised Cost Solution Round to nearest $100 3,600.00$    2,200.00$    1,400.00$      Tree 3: Platanus x hispanica ‐ NOT PROTECTED 1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 20 of 31 Figure 2: Trunk Formula Technique appraisal calculations for Trees 4-6. Tree 4: Platanus racemosa Measurement Source Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Difference ADBH Field Measurement 24.8 in 24.8 in B Trunk Area of Subject Tree π * (A/2)2 483 in² 483 in² CUnit Cost WCISA Regional Guide 62.00$          62.00$           DBasic Tree Cost B*C 29,949.18$  29,949.18$   E Condition Rating Arborist Opinion 71% 27% F Functional Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% GExternal Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% H Depreciated Cost D*E*F*G 21,263.92$  8,086.28$     IFinal Appraised Cost Solution Round to nearest $1000 21,000.00$  8,000.00$    13,000.00$    Tree 5: Fraxinus velutina Measurement Source Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Difference ADBH Field Measurement 20.0 in 20.0 in B Trunk Area  of Subject Tree π * (A/2)2 314 in² 314 in² CUnit Cost WCISA Regional Guide 45.00$          45.00$           DBasic Tree Cost B*C 14,137.17$  14,137.17$   E Condition Rating Arborist Opinion 82% 17% F Functional Limitations Arborist Opinion 80% 80% GExternal Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% H Depreciated Cost D*E*F*G 9,273.98$    1,877.42$     IFinal Appraised Cost Solution Round to nearest $1000 9,000.00$    2,000.00$    7,000.00$      Tree 6: Fraxinus velutina Measurement Source Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Difference ADBH Field Measurement 14.0 in 14.0 in B Trunk Area  of Subject Tree π * (A/2)2 154 in² 154 in² CUnit Cost WCISA Regional Guide 45.00$          45.00$           DBasic Tree Cost B*C 6,927.21$    6,927.21$     E Condition Rating Arborist Opinion 60% 32% F Functional Limitations Arborist Opinion 80% 80% GExternal Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% H Depreciated Cost D*E*F*G 3,325.06$    1,773.37$     IFinal Appraised Cost Solution Round to nearest $100 3,300.00$    1,800.00$    1,500.00$      1203 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. August 27, 2018 Page 21 of 31 Figure 3: Condition rating calculations for Trees 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6. Tree 3 was not included because it was not large enough to be a protected tree. Condition Rating Weight Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Health 20% 80% 50% Structure 50% 80% 21% Form 30% 80% 25% TOTAL 80% 28% Tree 1: Platanus racemosa Condition Rating Weight Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Health 30% 70% 50% Structure 30% 60% 41% Form 40% 80% 41% TOTAL 71% 44% Tree 2: Platanus x hispanica Condition Rating Weight Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Health 30% 60% 41% Structure 30% 70% 21% Form 40% 80% 21% TOTAL 71% 27% Tree 4: Platanus racemosa Condition Rating Weight Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Health 40% 80% 21% Structure 20% 70% 21% Form 40% 90% 10% TOTAL 82% 17% Tree 5: Fraxinus velutina Condition Rating Weight Pre‐Loss Post‐Loss Health 40% 60% 40% Structure 20% 60% 40% Form 40% 60% 20% TOTAL 60% 32% Tree 6: Fraxinus velutina 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Site Map Figure 4 in blue. F ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 p 4: Site map sh Fraxinus tree Tree Appra One Arbori howing the l es are shown aisal Report iculture Inc. locations of n in grey. each of the subject treess. Platanus t Page 22 trees are sho of 31 wn 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Site Pho Figure 5 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 tos 5: Tree 1 Pre Tree Appra One Arbori -Loss (left) a aisal Report iculture Inc. and Post-Lo ss (right). Page 23 of 31 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 6 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 6: Tree 2 Pre Tree Appra One Arbori -Loss (left) a aisal Report iculture Inc. and Post-Lo ss (right). Page 24 of 31 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 7 protected ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 7: Tree 3 Pre d by ordinan Tree Appra One Arbori -Loss (left) a ce. aisal Report iculture Inc. and Post-Lo ss (right). Thhis tree is noot large enou Page 25 ugh to be of 31 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 8 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 8: Tree 4 Pre Tree Appra One Arbori -Loss (left) a aisal Report iculture Inc. and Post-Lo ss (right). Page 26 of 31 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 9 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 9: Tree 5 Pre Tree Appra One Arbori -Loss (left) a aisal Report iculture Inc. and Post-Lo ss (right). Page 27 of 31 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 1 of Tree 5 ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 0: Tree 6 Pr 5 and Tree 6 Tree Appra One Arbori re-Loss (left) were not tou aisal Report iculture Inc. ) and Post-L uching the p oss (right). A power lines p As seen in th prior to the p he image at l pruning. Page 28 left, the bran of 31 nches 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 1 pruning. ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 1: Close up I observed a Tree Appra One Arbori of one branc a milky sap e aisal Report iculture Inc. ch on Tree 6 exuding from 6 that Harry p m the prunin pointed out ng cut, indica as being dea ating it was s Page 29 ad prior to th still alive. of 31 he 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 1 pruning. alive. No branch at ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 2: Close up I observed m ote the 10-12 t left. Tree Appra One Arbori of another b many small w 2 inches of to aisal Report iculture Inc. branch on Tr watersprouts orn bark on t ree 6 Harry p s emerging, i the pruning c pointed out a indicating th cut on the un as being dea hese branche nderside of t Page 30 d prior to es were still the scaffold of 31 1203 Hig James Ko August 2 Figure 1 trunk prio conductiv ghland Oaks omen, Class 27, 2018 3: Close up or to the pru vity of water Tree Appra One Arbori of the bark o uning. The ac r along the s aisal Report iculture Inc. of Tree 4. Th ctivity did no stem. here was som ot appear to me minor ba be affecting ark beetle act g the overall Page 31 tivity in the health or of 31