Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArborist Report1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Prepared for Faye Wang 1358 Highland Oaks Dr 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 March 12, 2019 MAR 18 2.019 Planning Services City 0f Arcadia Page 1 of 16 Table of Contents Summary Background Observations and Discussion Appraisal Methodology Other Appraisal Methods Limits of Assignment Works Cited Appraisal Calculations Site Map Site Photos 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 6 9 10 10 11 12 13 Page 2 of 16 Summary Three large lateral branches on a Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) in the front yard of the subject property were pruned off in 2018. In February of 2019, property owner Faye Wang received a Notice of Violation from the City of Arcadia, requiring her to obtain a tree permit retroactively for pruning work performed. Faye asked me to prepare an arborist report that documented the work performed. If the branches would not have been permitted for removal if Faye had applied for a permit prior to pruning, then the appraised loss in value resulting from the pruning of the branches was $2,000. Otherwise, the appraised loss in value is $0. Background On April 17, 2017, I prepared an arborist report for Nelson Chang, acting on behalf of property owner Faye Wang, documenting all of the protected trees on site that could potentially be impacted by a proposed addition to the rear of the house. Among the trees included in the report was Tree 1, the Coast Live Oak at the southwest comer of the property. In the 2017 report on Page 4, I provided recommendations for preserving a low lateral scaffold branch that grew over the driveway. I expressed a concern over the possibility that high-profile vehicles may impact the limb, and I recommended communicating the intention to preserve the branch. At the time the report was prepared, Tree 1 had a thinning canopy, indicating early signs of stress. There was deadwood present in the canopy as well. My last communication with Nelson was April 20, 2017, where he gave me his approval of the report. I was not involved in the subsequent construction planning process, and I was not informed about the intention of pruning Tree 1. In 2018, Faye became concerned about the low branch over the driveway, a scaffold branch over the street, and another branch over her neighbor's property to the south. When she read the tree ordinance prior to the pruning, she incorrectly interpreted it to mean that pruning branches smaller than 12 inches in diameter did not require a permit. Faye received a notice of Violation on February 28, 2019 and subsequently got the City's permission to extend the correction due date to March 31, 2019. She called me on March 1, 2019 and asked me to prepare an appraisal of the condition of Tree I for purposes of bringing her property back into compliance with the City. I visited the property on March 5, 2019 at 11:30am to collect data for this report. In the time since my last site visit, the tree tags had deteriorated. I attached a new tag to Tree 1 for ease of readability. Faye asked me to limit my reporting of the trees on the property to only Tree 1, which was the only tree documented in the Notice of Violation she received in February of 2019. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 3 of 16 Observations and Discussion Tree I had not changed substantially in DBH or in height since my last site visit in 2017. Its DBH was still 29 inches, and its height was still approximately 40 feet. The canopy spread of 45 feet was significantly smaller than the former spread of 75 feet because of the removal of the lateral scaffold branches. The canopy density was sparser than in 2017, and deadwood was still present. Many of the small twigs at the branch tips had died back. The turfgrass was still growing up to the trunk of the tree, despite my recommendation in the 2017 report to shut off irrigation within 5 feet of the trunk of the tree. Three scaffold branches ranging in diameter from approximately 8-10 inches in diameter were pruned off Tree 1. The branches were pruned using "heading" cuts, cutting back to a stump instead of pruning back to the branch union with the trunk. One of these branches was the low scaffold branch that extended over the driveway and was marked for preservation in the 2017 report. The three pruned scaffold branches formerly comprised approximately 25% of the total canopy prior to their removal, more than the recommended maximum canopy pruning of 10-20%. Faye told me the purpose of the pruning was to improve clearance over the driveway and street and to mitigate the neighbor's concerns over branch encroachment over the property line. The excessive pruning was not the original cause of the tree's suboptimal health. Although the tree's condition had declined since my last site visit in 2017, the tree's stressed health pre -dated the pruning, as documented in the April 2017 report. With regards to the impact on the value of the tree, a decision must be made by the City with regards to the conditions under which a permit would have been granted. This decision will weigh the relative importance of vehicle clearance versus tree protection: On one hand, two of the scaffold branches encroached upon vehicle clearance over the driveway and the street. High profile vehicles were limited from accessing the southern driveway entrance on Faye's property, and high profile vehicles on the street were limited by the area of the tree's dripline. One argument could be made that the tree branches detracted from the value of the tree because they decreased the functionality of the tree in the landscape by precluding vehicle access. - On the other hand, there was an alternative driveway entrance that allowed high-profile vehicles to access the property without interfering with Tree 1. Moreover, the encroachment of the oak over the street was not so limiting as to preclude all vehicle travel; it merely limited high profile vehicles from driving immediately adjacent to the curb on a relatively wide street where they could easily drive around the tree. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 4 of 16 If the value of vehicle clearance supersedes the value of the protected tree's branches, then there is no value loss from the pruning, and the appraisal of value loss in this report should be ignored. If, however, the branches are valued more than vehicle clearance because of the possible alternative routes for high-profile vehicles, then the uniquely aesthetic form of the tree has been partially compromised. The appraisal of value loss documented in this report is based on the assumption that the tree's form was more valuable than the vehicular clearance. If the vehicular clearance is found to take precedence, then the appraised loss in this report should not be used. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 5 of 16 Appraisal Methodology The approach I took for appraising the subject tree was the cost approach. Because the subject tree is larger than the largest commonly available nursery 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 10"' 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 nursery 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 10 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 the subject tree 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. As stated before, if the branch pruning would have been permitted if Faye had applied for a permit prior to pruning, then the appraised loss in this report should not be used. 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. The cross sectional area (A) is calculated by the formula A = a/4 dZ. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 6 of 16 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. Quercus agrifolia is from Nursery Group 3 in Southern California, having a unit cost of $62 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 he 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. I rated the pre -loss health of Tree I as Fair. It had reduced vigor and twig dieback. It did not meet the description of "normal vigor for species" associated with a Good rating, but it was not "unhealthy and declining in appearance" so I did not assign a Poor rating. Even after the pruning, the tree did not meet the description for Poor. Therefore, for Tree 1's pre -loss condition, I assigned a rating of 50%, and for the post -loss condition, I assigned a rating of 41%, the lowest percentage rating allowable for the Fair category. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 7 of 16 The structure of the tree was normal for the species prior to the pruning, with the exception of the lateral branch over the driveway. This branch extended laterally far enough to be considered a minor defect, even for Coast Live Oak, which is ordinarily tolerant of cantilevered branches. Therefore, I rated the tree as having a Good pre -loss structure rating. After pruning the subject branches, the over-extended brunch over the driveway had been removed, but the lowest scaffold branches were missing, too. Further, these branches had been cut back to stumps with weak structural unions to the resulting re -sprout growth. I rated the pre -loss structure of the tree as 70%, and the post -loss structure as 61%, the lowest percentage rating in the range for Good. There were counterbalancing positive and negative effects of the pruning, which made the overall reduction in the tree's structure rating relatively small. The form of the tree was asymmetrical prior to the pruning, with the large lateral branch reaching out to the north over the driveway. After the pruning, the symmetry of the tree had actually been improved, but the stumps that remained became a new defect in the aesthetic form of the tree. These two outcomes equally counterbalanced each other. The pre -loss form rating of the tree was 70%, and the post -loss form rating of the tree was also 70%. I weighted all three attributes equally. The pre -loss condition rating of Tree 1 was 63%. The post -loss condition rating of Tree 1 was 57% Functional Limitations Functional Limitations reflect the restriction on tree growth or intended use in the landscape based on the interaction of site and species. Prior to the pruning, the tree's lowest branches blocked access for high-profile vehicles to the southern driveway and partially hung over the street. In a small way, this limited the functionality of the tree in the landscape. However, these negative impacts were more than offset by the positive benefits provided by its placement. Growing in the southwest comer of the yard, it shaded the property from the western sun. It also anchored the corner of the property visually, and provided a stately, aesthetic appearance at the entrance to the property from the street. I rated the pre -loss functional limitations as 80%. After the pruning, access along the southern driveway by high profile -vehicles was not limited because the lateral scaffold branch was removed. But the aesthetic benefit of the low, sweeping branch was also lost. These two attributes offset each other, and I rated the post -loss functional limitations of the tree as 80% as well (no change). External Limitations 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. Tree 1 does not have any of these limitations. Therefore, I assigned an External Limitations rating of 100% to the subject tree both before and after the pruning. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 8 of 16 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. 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 Tree 1 to be $21,000. I appraised the post -loss cost solution for Tree 1 to be $19,000. This reflects a total diminution in value of $2,000 resulting from the pruning. This amount of loss only applies if the branches would not have been permitted for removal had Faye applied for a permit prior to pruning. If the branch pruning would have been permitted, then the appraised loss in value is $0. 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 10"' 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. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 9 of 16 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 prior images obtained. 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. 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. 10'" Edition. 02018 CTLA. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. A Regional Supplement to the CTLA Guide for Plant Appraisal. (02004 by WC -ISA 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 10 of 16 Appraisal Calculations Tree 1: Quercus agrifolia Figure 1: Trunk Formula Technique appraisal calculations for Tree 1, Tree 1: Quercus agrifolia Condition Rating Measurement Source Pre -Loss Post -Loss Difference A DBH Field Measurement 29.0 in 29.0 in B Trunk Area of Subject Tree n . (A/2 )2 661 in' 661 int C Unit Cost WCISA Regional Guide $ 62.00 $ 62.00 D Basic Tree Cost B•C $ 40,952.23 $ 40,952.23 E Condition Rating Arborist Opinion 63% 57% F Functional Limitations Arborist Opinion 80% 80% G External Limitations Arborist Opinion 100% 100% H Depreciated Cost D"E`F•G $ 20,749.13 $ 18,783.42 I Final Appraised Cost Solution Round to nearest $1000 1 $ 21,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Figure 1: Trunk Formula Technique appraisal calculations for Tree 1, Tree 1: Quercus agrifolia Condition Rating Weight Pre -Loss Post -Loss Health 33% 50% 41% Structure 33% 70% 61% Form 33% 70% 70% TOTAL 63% 57% Figure 2: Condition rating calculations for Tree 1. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 11 of 16 Site Map s 7 ' it _ Figure 3: Site map showing the location of the subject tree in yellow. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 12 of 16 1�� '�. Z•�� 'T � 't ci'- rF A i f� 4 ♦ Y4y I J If � irks .✓.'y�` < r'igure 5: Looking east at the stump of the scaffold branch that was removed over the driveway. This branch formerly blocked high-profile vehicles, but it contributed to the tree's aesthetic. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 14 of 16 Figure 6: Looking south at the two cuts that were made for driveway clearance (left) and street clearance (right). 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 15 of 16 1 17 •.jam- „ .'�`'..'i.`�`. �/ �. .� , a 111 � i i� • ': ems' ,.{ i•' .. • 1V -r S pp ♦ ; �, I day~� -.. s'"%'•' ��/+,� :•�[r� •+'�. yy�•) •I tet': .4- [ r �•• . +� rC•Ir.,. ? :� i r } �i'7L.�'.� ^r•i k i r t 'i\ l •�. .e•.. ,jyj(• J' %q"'I..l�r .jc �Ic:.,, .y. Figure 7: The turfgrass still grew up to the trunk of Tree 1, despite the recommendation in my 2017 report. I recommend shutting off spray irrigation within 5 feet of the trunk of the tree. 1358 Highland Oaks Tree Appraisal Report James Komen, Class One Arboriculture Inc. March 12, 2019 Page 16 of 16