Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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