Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArborist ReportEvaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 REPORT PREPARED FOR: Song Kim Kou 1005 S. EI Molino St. Alhambra, CA 91801 Pg 1 PROJECT ADDRESS: 509 Coyle Ave. Arcadia, CA 91006 REPORT PREPARED BY: Peter Harnisch 1022 Santa Ana St. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 peter@harnischtreecare.com (626) 945 3176 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 Table of Contents Summary......................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3 Background.................................................................................................................3 7 Assignment.................................................................................................................. 3 FieldInspection.. .......................................................................................................... 3 Limitsof the Assignment ............................................................................................ 3 Purposeand Use of the Report .......................................................................................4 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions....................................................... Observations... ................... ................ ............................................................ ............ 4 Site.............................................................................................................................. 4 Tree............................................................................................................................. 4 Discussion....................................................................................................................... 5 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 6 AppendixA: Site Plan...................................................................................................... 7 AppendixB: Photos........................................................................................................8 AppendixB: Photos... ...................................................................................................... 9 Appendix C: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions....................................................... 10 Appendix D: Certification of Performance..................................................................... 11 Appendix E: List of Credentials .................................................................................. 12 pg. 2 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 Summary Song Kim Kou contacted me about an elm tree at his property in Arcadia where there is an ongoing construction project. He was concerned about the tree's structure and wanted to remove it. The elm is a protected tree as per the city's tree protection ordinance. Mr. Kou asked me to provide an evaluation of the tree to satisfy removal permit requirements. I inspected the tree and determined that although it appears to be in good health, it may be subject to failure due to inherent flaws within its branchs and trunk. Corrective structural pruning would not be feasible. I concluded that it is poorly placed and should be removed and replaced. Introduction Background Song Kim Kou recently contacted me about an elm tree at a property in Arcadia where construction project is underway. He had concerns about the tree's structure. He noticed that it is leans heavily and was worried that it could fall over, or branches could break from it. He wanted to remove it. Assignment The City of Arcadia Tree Protection Ordinance No. 2338 requires a permit to remove certain trees larger than 12 inches diameter measured 4.5 feet above grade (DBH). An evaluation of the tree by a certified arborist is required for the removal permit. Mr. Kou asked me to provide a written evaluation to satisfy this requirement. Field Inspection traveled to the site on March 22, 2021. 1 took measurements, photographs, and visually inspected the subject tree from the ground. My findings within the following report are based on those observations. No in-depth above or below ground inspections are included as part of this report. I did not tag the tree, but I located it on a site plan that was provided to me. Limits of the Assignment pg 3 Observations made in the following report are based on visual inspections from the ground only at the time of inspection and are limited to the tree or trees which are subject of this report only. Trees subject to this report are those known to be within the boundaries of the subject property. Property line locations were described to me by others; Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 accuracy of property boundaries is not guaranteed. Before any recommendations are followed or actions taken regarding any trees that are subject to this report, a determination of ownership should be made. Since property lines sometimes do not follow existing terrain or man-made barriers, the location of such boundaries should be accurately determined before making any assumptions of ownership. This report is by no means to be considered as a formal risk assessment of the subject tree. All trees represent some risk of failure. Even with an evaluation such as this, there is no guarantee that a tree will not fail unexpectedly. Trees are dynamic living organisms subject to many influencing factors. All trees are potentially hazardous regardless of their apparent health, vigor, or structural integrity. It is impossible to be 100% sure that a tree is absolutely safe. The tree owner/manager must decide how much risk he/she is willing to accept. This must be weighed against the value and benefit that we receive from trees. Purpose and Use of the Report The purpose of this report is as follows; Provide an evaluation of the subject tree in the form of a written report. It is intended to be used by the owner to assist in obtaining a tree removal permit. Observations Site The Kuo Property is in a residential neighborhood within the south east portion of Arcadia. The address is 509 Coyle Avenue. At the time of my inspection, construction work was in progress. It appears that the existing home had been removed and the lot had been recently graded. The subject tree is located adjacent to the eastern property line in the rear portion of the lot (see Appendix X Site Plan). Tree The subject tree is a Chinese elm (ulmus parvifolia) (see Appendix B: photo 1). It does not appear to have been purposely planted. It has the following dimensions, DBH Canopy Height (estimated) Radius 20.7x23.7 14'x42' 40' oval irre ular Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 The root zone of the elm consists of mostly bare soil within the Kuo Property. There is a fence which seems to define the property line next to the elm. Ivy is growing on the fence and has grown onto the elm's trunk. Turf and a small utility shed are located within the root zone on the neighboring property to the east. The elm's trunk is short and leans heavily to the north west. There is ivy, leaf litter, and soil piled against its base. The trunk flare could not be adequately inspected (see Appendix B: Photo 2). The branch structure of the elm begins as its two primary scaffold limbs emerge from the trunk at about five feet above grade forming a co -dominant union. Bulges of reactionary growth could be seen at the sides of the union (see Appendix B: Photo 3). Several branch unions higher up within the elm appear to be co -dominant as well. Many large limbs are horizontal, have poor taper, and appear to be carrying excessive load (see Appendix B: Photo 4). The canopy of the elm is irregular. It extends into the Kuo Property more than 40 feet from its trunk. It has also grown onto the neighboring property; however, it appears that pruning was done previously to limit its size. Foliage indicators appear to be consistent with what is normally seen within a health Chinese elm. Color and density appear to be adequate. Discussion Chinese elm trees are a fast-growing species which is subject to poor structure. They are native to China, Japan, North Korea, and Vietnam. In addition, they are rated as an allergy health hazard' - Co -dominant stem formations are generally considered as weak and subject to failure. They form when two branches develop at the same time and grow at the same rate. The attachment formed when one branch is dominant over another is usually stronger. When internal cracking is present within such a union, response growth will often develop around it forming bulges. When these unions are located close to the ground, they can be more vulnerable to failure than when not. More leverage is exerted against them from tree parts above. Horizontal and leaning trunks and limbs can be predisposed to failure as the effects of gravity are greater upon them. Structural pruning necessary to correct significant flaws within mature trees often requires extensive pruning. This work is best done in stages to minimize stress. A year ' www.ufeiselectree Pg. 5 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 over year pruning plan can be implemented to achieve desired goals without having to remove large tree parts or excessive foliage during a single pruning event. Conclusion Based on the elm's foliage characteristics and response growth development, it appears to be in reasonably good health. I am concerned about its structure, however. I believe it is subject to failure in its current condition. I also believe that it is poorly placed. A regiment of year over year structural pruning may improve its structure, however, it would be costly and invasive after construction is completed. I believe that it should be removed and replaced by a tree planted in a more suitable location on the property. Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm Appendix A: Site Plan March 23, 2021 Pg 7 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist 3 3 T � S • 5 S I p i^• e � y , "s gel a C t ' •---rn— °I < Z '- I a Hill �.. 40 3 IJ C} I� IPLUI t 99 5y €= _B�i I Z (DcoLL= C'. _ Subject aI I - - , . _I- Elm H, '- Tree i� - I 01 NSL 3.OM19LiBN NF C) CJ1 Pg 7 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm Appendix B: Photos e,6 Photo 2. The trunk flare is obscured witf soil, and leaf March 23, 2021 Photo 1. The subject elm is growing adjacent to the property line on the east { side of the Kuo Property. I q r Y� p Pg 8 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist k i 4. ,nal co - a within • f • ',,.... Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 Appendix C: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible, however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. 4. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or oral consent of the consultant /appraiser. 6. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed written or oral consent of the consultant/appraiser particularly as to value considerations, identity or the consultant /appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. 7. This report and values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultantlappraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 8. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. 9. Unless expressed otherwise: (1) information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection, and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems and deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. pg. 10 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 Appendix D: Certification of Performance I, Peter Harnisch, certify that: • 1 have personally inspected the trees and the property referred to in this report and have stated my findings accurately. 1 have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. • The analysis, opinions, and conclusions stated herein are my own and are based on current scientific procedures and facts. • My analysis, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices. • No one provided significant professional assistance to me, except as indicated within the report. My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party or upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events. I further certify that I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and the International Society of Arboriculture. I have been involved in the field of arboriculture and care and study of trees for over 40 years. Signed: *ia6x Date:3/23/21 pg. 11 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist Evaluation of the Kou Residence Elm March 23, 2021 Appendix E• List of Credentials vy QNi N ti Q 02 Q r s P4 a ?� Q 00 Se_y- �e � 4 O � Y 0 55 U aIL l W d yU : ro I Q UU m a •y �. _ •p � f G .i4 12 'a r TV pg 92 Peter C. Harnisch Consulting Arborist 3 T �F tw L iL r j L