RPVCCA_CC_SR_2013_06_18_O_View_Restoration_Arborist_Professional_ServicesCITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
RECOMMENDATION
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY~OUNCI MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DEV MENT DIRECTOR
JUNE 18, 2013
AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR VIEW RESTORATION ARBORIST
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
CAROLYN LEHR, CITY MANAGER QQ__
Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner P6
Authorize Staff to execute a professional services agreement for the Mayor's signature with
Mr. Greg Applegate of Arborgate Consulting, Inc. to provide view restoration arboriculture
services on an as-needed basis to the City in an amount not to exceed $4,000 for two years or
until June 30, 2015.
BACKGROUND
Implementation of the City's View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance requires the use of a
professional arborist consultant to assist Staff in expert and professional consultation during the
formal permit processing stage. When requested by the City, expert consultation is carried out
by the City's contract View Restoration Arborist. For the last several years, City Staff has
worked closely and effectively with the View Restoration Arborist in resolving view restoration
cases. Mr. David Hayes is under contract as the City's current View Restoration Arborist and his
two-year contract is set to expire on June 30, 2013. However, Mr. Hayes has advised Staff that
he is retiring at this time and so does not wish Staff to renew his contract. As such, after
sending out a Request For Proposal (RFP), Staff has selected a new professional arborist
consultant and is now recommending authorization to enter into an agreement with the
consultant to act as the City's View Restoration Arborist for two years.
DISCUSSION
Since 1998, the City has utilized the services of a View Restoration Arborist to provide expert
arboriculture consultation to City Staff relating to all the facets of the City's view restoration
process. Specifically, the consulting arborist provides, upon request by City Staff, Planning
Commission, and/or City Council expert opinion regarding the vegetation heath impacts when
O-1
considering trimming for view restoration cases. The Consulting Arborist also provides re-
landscaping recommendations to the City for those properties affected by view-impairing tree
removal. The cost of these services is borne by the City's budget. The proposed fiscal year
2013-2014 budget allocates $4,000 for these services.
CONSUL TANT SELECTION:
A Request for Proposals (RFP) was distributed to 22 arboriculture firms. The City received
proposals from the following two firms: Arborgate Consulting Inc. and JTL Consultants. After
reviewing the proposals, Staff believes that Arborgate Consulting Inc. would be the best firm to
complete the project based on their qualifications, experience, and the lowest cumulative fee
estimate.
The sole arborist with Arborgate Consulting Inc. is Mr. Greg Applegate. Staff believes that Greg
Applegate is highly qualified to work as the City's View Restoration consulting arborist based on
his credentials, experience and availability. Mr. Applegate is a Certified Arborist, Certified Tree
Risk Assessor, as well as a Registered Consulting Arborist, which is defined on the American
Society of Consulting Arborist's (ASCA) website as an arborist who: "Has demonstrated higher
skills in certain technical areas related to trees and tree care, providing objective, independent
opinions, with training for higher communication, presentation and/or report writing skills." A
registered consulting arborist has met stringent requirements for technical education and
experience and also successfully completed the ASCA Consulting Academy training. Mr.
Applegate also has extensive experience working with numerous municipalities, as well as
private companies, both large and small. Staff has checked references and has received
positive recommendations from other cities regarding Mr. Applegate. He has also served as an
expert witness in private litigation related to view issues between neighbors in other
jurisdictions.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons noted above, Staff recommends that the Council award a professional
service agreement with Mr. Greg Applegate of Arborgate Consulting, •nc., to provide
arboriculture services on an as-needed basis to the City for two years or until June 30, 2015, in
an amount not to exceed $4,000.
FISCAL IMPACT
Municipal Code section 2.44.060 provides an exemption from bid procedures for licensed
professionals. As such, Staff is requesting that the City Council approve retention of Greg
Applegate with Arborgate Consulting, Inc. as a qualified professional.
Approval of the services contract with Mr. Applegate will not require a budget adjustment as the
costs have already been approved and are included in the FY13/14 View Restoration Division's
budget. The costs for these services will come from the General Fund and are not funded by
any application fees.
ALTERNATIVES
The following are alternatives to Staff's recommended action:
1) Request Staff to solicit additional bids for professional arboriculture services or;
2) Identify any issues of concern that may require further study and direct Staff to provide
additional information at a subsequent meeting.
O-2
3) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for more or less than the June
30, 2015 contract expiration date.
ATTACHMENTS
• Agreement for Consulting Services
Proposal by Arborgate Consulting, Inc.
O-3
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
ON-CALL PROFESSIONAL/ TECHNICAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into this 181h day of June, 2013, by
and between the City of Rancho Palos Verdes (hereinafter referred to as the "CITY") and
Arborgate Consulting, Inc. (hereafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").
IN CONSIDERATION of the covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
ARTICLE 1
SCOPE OF SERVICES
1 . 1 Project Description
The Project is described as on-call services as follows:
View Restoration Arborist Consulting Services.
1.2 Description of Services
CONSULTANT shall provide professional arboriculture services in connection
with the administration of CITY's View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance, Rancho
Palos Verdes Municipal Code section 17.02.040. The professional arboriculture services
to be performed by CONSUL TANT shall include, but are not limited to, the services more
particularly described below:
(a) Upon request by City Staff, CONSULTANT shall conduct field visits,
telephone conferencing, and basic tree analysis via email pursuant to the procedures set
forth in the City's Local View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference.
(b) Upon request by City Staff, CONSULTANT shall provide the City with
written reports that are approximately 1 to 2 pages each concerning, but not limited to,
foliage health and safety, growth rates, trimming or removal impacts, and other such topics
relating to arboriculture services.
(c) Upon request by City Staff, CONSUL TANT shall provide expert
arboriculture testimony before the Planning Commission and the City Council when
considering the effect of foliage removal, trimming, and/or replacement for View
Restoration Application Permit requests.
These services are further described in the CITY's Request For Proposals, which is
attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this reference, and in
CONSUL TANT's Proposal, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein
Page 1 of 11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-4
by this reference. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and
incorporated documents, the terms of this Agreement shall control. In the event of any
conflict between Exhibits "B" and "C," the terms of Exhibit "B" shall control. ·
1.3 Schedule of Work
Upon receipt of written Notice to Proceed from the CITY, CONSULTANT
shall perform with due diligence the services requested by the CITY. Time is of the
essence in this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall not be responsible for delay, nor shall
CONSUL TANT be responsible for damages or be in default or deemed to be in default by
reason of strikes, lockouts, accidents, or acts of God, or the failure of CITY to furnish timely
information or to approve or disapprove CONSUL TANT's work promptly, or delay or faulty
performance by CITY, other consultants/contractors, or governmental agencies, or any
other delays beyond CONSUL TANT's control or without CONSUL TANT's fault.
2.1 Fee
ARTICLE 2
COMPENSATION
CITY agrees to compensate CONSUL TANT in accordance with
CONSUL TANT's Schedule of Hourly Rates, which is within Exhibit "C," and in any case an
amount not to exceed four thousand dollars ($4,000) per fiscal year for services as
described in Article 1. On-call services that are reimbursed by a trust deposit shall not
count towards the maximum amount CONSULANT shall be paid for such services. The
rates in Exhibit "C" shall be in effect through the end of the Agreement.
2.2 Terms of Compensation
CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices for the work completed in the
previous month. CITY agrees to authorize payment for all undisputed invoice amounts
within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice. CITY agrees to use its best efforts to
notify CONSUL TANT of any disputed invoice amounts within ten (10) days of the receipt of
each invoice. However, CITY's failure to timely notify CONSUL TANT of a disputed amount
shall not be deemed a waiver of CITY's right to challenge such amount.
Additionally, in the event CITY fails to pay any undisputed amounts due
CONSULTANT within forty-five (45) days after invoices are received by CITY then CITY
agrees that CONSULTANT shall have the right to consider said default a total breach of
this Agreement and be terminated by CONSULTANT without liability to CONSULTANT
upon ten (10) working days advance written notice.
Page 2of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-5
2.3 Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2013 and shall terminate on June
30, 2015 unless sooner terminated pursuant to Article 4 of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE
3.1 Indemnification
To the maximum extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend,
indemnify, and hold the CITY, its officials, officers, employees, agents and independent
contractors serving in the role of CITY officials, and volunteers (collectively "lndemnitees")
free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses,
liabilities, losses, damages or injuries, in law or equity, to property or persons, including
wrongful death (collectively "Claims"), in any manner arising out of or incident to any acts or
omissions of CONSUL TANT, its officials, officers, employees or agents in connection with
the performance of this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all
consequential damages, attorneys' fees, and other related costs and expenses, except for
such Claims arising out of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the lndemnitees.
With respect to any and all such Claims, CONSUL TANT shall defend lndemnitees at
CONSULTANT's own cost, expense, and risk and shall pay and satisfy any judgment,
award, or decree that may be rendered against lndemnitees. CONSULTANT shall
reimburse lndemnitees for any and all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them
in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. CONSULTANT's
obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by
CONSUL TANT or lndemnitees. All duties of CONSUL TANT under this Section shall
survive termination of this Agreement.
3.2 General Liability
CONSUL TANT shall at all times during the term of the Agreement carry,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Commercial General
Liability Insurance, with minimum limits of one million dollars ($1 ,000,000) for each
occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate for bodily injury, death,
loss or property damage for products or completed operations and any and all other
activities undertaken by CONSUL TANT in the performance of this Agreement. Said policy
or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of California
and rated in A.M. Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A:VII or better.
3.3 Professional Liability
CONSULTANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement, carry,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect a policy or policies of professional liability
insurance with a minimum limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and aggregate
Page 3of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-6
for errors and/or omissions of CONSUL TANT in the performance of this Agreement. Said
policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the State of
California and rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A:VII or better. If a "claims
made" policy is provided, such policy shall be maintained in effect from the date of
performance of work or services on the CITY's behalf until three (3) years afterthe date of
work or services are accepted as completed. Coverage for the post-completion period may
be provided by renewal or replacement of the policy for each of the three (3) years or by a
three-year extended reporting period endorsement, which reinstates all limits for the
extended reporting period. If any such policy and/or policies have a retroactive date, that
date shall be no later than the date of first performance of work or services on behalf of the
CITY. Renewal or replacement policies shall not allow for any advancement of such
retroactive date.
3.4 Automobile Liability
CONSUL TANT shall at all times during the term of this Agreement obtain,
maintain, and keep in full force and effect, a policy or policies of Automobile Liability
Insurance, with minimum of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and occurrence and
in the aggregate for bodily injuries or death of one person and five hundred thousand
dollars ($500,000) for property damage arising from one incident.
3.5 Worker's Compensation
CONSUL TANT agrees to maintain in force at all times during the
performance of work under this Agreement worker's compensation insurance as required
by the law. If consultant has no employees, no such insurance is required by law.
CONSULT ANT shall require any subcontractor similarly to provide such compensation
insurance for their respective employees.
3.6 Notice of Cancellation
(a) All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall
not be cancelled or modified by the insurance carrier without thirty (30) days prior written
notice to CITY, or ten (10) days notice if cancellation is due to nonpayment of premium.
Additionally, CONSULTANT shall provide immediate notice to the City if it receives a
cancellation or policy revision notice from the insurer.
(b) CONSUL TANT agrees that it will not cancel or reduce any required
insurance coverage. CONSUL TANT agrees that if it does not keep the aforesaid
insurance in full force and effect, CITY may either immediately terminate this Agreement
or, if insurance is available at a reasonable cost, CITY may take out the necessary
insurance and pay, at CONSUL TANT's expense, the premium thereon.
3.7 Entire Policy and Certificate of Insurance
Page 4of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-7
At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSUL TANT shall maintain
on file with the CITY Clerk both a copy of the entire policy and a certificate of insurance
showing that the aforesaid policies are in effect in the required amounts. The commercial
general liability policy shall contain endorsements naming the CITY, its officers, agents and
employees as additional insureds.
3.8 Primary Coverage
The insurance provided by CONSUL TANT shall be primary to any coverage
available to CITY. The insurance policies (other than workers compensation and
professional liability) shall include provisions for waiver of subrogation.
ARTJCLE 4
TERMINATION
4.1 Termination of Agreement
(a) This Agreement may be terminated at any time, with or without cause,
by the CITY upon thirty (30) days prior written notice or by CONSUL TANT upon ninety (90)
days prior written notice. Notice shall be deemed served if completed in compliance with
Section 6.14.
(b) In the event of termination or cancellation of this Agreement by
CONSUL TANT or CITY, due to no fault or failure of performance by CONSUL TANT,
CONSUL TANT shall be paid compensation for all services performed by CONSUL TANT,
in an amount to be determined as follows: for work satisfactorily done in accordance with
all of the terms and provisions of this Agreement as determined by the CITY,
CONSULTANT shall be paid an amount equal to the percentage of services performed
prior to the effective date of termination or cancellation in accordance with the work items;
provided, in no event shall the amount of money paid under the foregoing provisions of this
paragraph exceed the amount which would have been paid to CONSUL TANT for the full
performance of the services described in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 5
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS
5.1 Ownership of Documents and Work Product
All final documents, plans, specifications, reports, information, data, exhibits,
photographs, images, video files and media created or developed by CONSULTANT
pursuant to this Agreement ("Written Products") shall be and remain the property of the
CITY without restriction or limitation upon its use, duplication or dissemination by the CITY.
All Written Products shall be considered "works made for hire," and all Written Products
and any and all intellectual property rights arising from their creation, including, but not
limited to, all copyrights and other proprietary rights, shall be and remain the property of the
Page 5of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-8
CITY without restriction or limitation upon their use, duplication or dissemination by the
CITY. CONSUL TANT shall not obtain or attempt to obtain copyright protection as to any
Written Products.
CONSUL TANT hereby assigns to the CITY all ownership and any and all
intellectual property rights to the Written Products that are not otherwise vested in the CITY
pursuant to the paragraph directly above this one.
CONSUL TANT warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary
licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which
any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of
the services and the production of all Written Products produced under this Agreement,
and that the CITY has full legal title to and the right to reproduce the Written Products.
CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, and its elected officials, officers,
employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent
contractors in the role of CITY officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way
related to a claim that CITY's use of any of the Written Products is violating federal, state
or local laws, or any contractual provisions, or any laws relating to trade names, licenses,
franchises, copyrights, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights
and/or interests in products or inventions. CONSULTANT shall bear all costs arising from
the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials,
equipment, devices or processes in connection with its provision of the services and
Written Products produced under this Agreement. In the event the use of any of the
Written Products or other deliverables hereunder by the CITY is held to constitute an
infringement and the use of any of the same is enjoined, CONSULTANT, at its expense,
shall: (a) secure for CITY the right to continue using the Written Products and other
deliverables by suspension of any injunction, or by procuring a license or licenses for CITY;
or (b) modify the Written Products and other deliverables so that they become non-
infringing while remaining in compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. This
covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
Upon termination, abandonment or suspension of the Project, the
CONSUL TANT shall deliver to the CITY all Written Products and other deliverables related
to the Project without additional cost or expense to the CITY. If CONSUL TANT prepares a
document on a computer, CONSUL TANT shall provide CITY with said document both in a
printed format and in an electronic format that is acceptable to the CITY.
6.1 Representation
ARTICLE 6
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The CITY representative shall be the Community Development Director or his
or her designee. Gregory Applegate shall be the CONSUL TANT's designated
representative. These individuals shall be the primary contact persons for the parties
Page 6of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3. doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-9
regarding performance of this Agreement. Additionally, Gregory Applegate shall be
principally responsible for performing the tasks assigned to CONSUL TANT under this
Agreement. None of the work in Article 1 shall be performed by anyone other than Gregory
Applegate without the prior written consent of the City.
6.2 Fair Employment Practices/Equal Opportunity Acts
In the performance of this Agreement, CONSUL TANT shall comply with all
applicable provisions of the California Fair Employment Practices Act (California
Government Code Sections 12940-48), the applicable equal employment provisions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 200e-217), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. § 11200, et seq.).
6.3 Personnel
CONSULTANT represents that it has, or shall secure at its own expense, all
personnel required to perform CONSULTANT's services under this Agreement.
CONSUL TANT shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the continuity of CONSUL TANT's
staff who are assigned to perform the services hereunder and shall obtain the approval of
the Community Development Director of all proposed staff members who will perform such
services. CONSUL TANT may associate with or employ associates or subcontractors in the
performance of its services under this Agreement, but at all times shall CONSUL TANT be
responsible for its associates and subcontractors' services.
6.4 CONSUL TANT's Representations
CONSUL TANT represents, covenants and agrees that: a) CONSULTANT is
licensed, qualified, and capable offurnishing the labor, materials, and expertise necessary
to perform the services in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in this
Agreement; b) there are no obligations, commitments, or impediments of any kind that will
limit or prevent CONSUL TANT's full performance under this Agreement; c) to the extent
required by the standard of practice, CONSULTANT has investigated and considered the
scope of services performed, has carefully considered how the services should be
performed, and understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending
performance of the services under this Agreement.
6.5 Conflicts of Interest
CONSULTANT agrees not to accept any employment or representation
during the term of this Agreement or within twelve ( 12) months after completion of the work
under this Agreement which is or may likely make CONSUL TANT "financially interested"
(as provided in California Government Code Sections 1090 and 87100) in any decisions
made by CITY on any matter in connection with which CONSULTANT has been retained
pursuant to this Agreement.
Page 7of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-10
6.6 Legal Action
(a) Should either party to this Agreement bring legal action against the
other, the validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by
and construed under the laws of the State of California, excluding California's choice of law
rules. Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement shall be in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court.
(b) If any legal action or other proceeding, including action for declaratory
relief, is brought for the enforcement of this Agreement or because of an alleged dispute,
breach, default or misrepresentation in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs, in
addition to any other relief to which the party may be entitled.
(c) Should any legal action about a project between CITY and a party
other than CONSULTANT require the testimony of CONSULTANT when there is no
allegation that CONSUL TANT was negligent, CITY shall compensate CONSUL TANT for its
testimony and preparation to testify at the hourly rates in effect at the time of such
testimony.
6. 7 Assignment
Neither this Agreement nor any part thereof shall be assigned by
CONSUL TANT without the prior written consent of the CITY. Any such purported
assignment without written consent shall be null and void, and CONSULTANT shall hold
harmless, defend and indemnify the CITY and its officers, officials, employees, agents and
representatives with respect to any claim, demand or action arising from any unauthorized
assignment.
Notwithstanding the above, CONSUL TANT may use the services of persons
and entities not in CONSUL TANT's direct employ, when it is appropriate and customary to
do so. Such persons and entities include, but are not necessarily limited to, surveyors,
specialized consultants, and testing laboratories. CONSUL TANT's use of subcontractors
for additional services shall not be unreasonably restricted by the CITY provided
CONSUL TANT notifies the CITY in advance and the CITY authorizes such work.
6.8 Independent Contractor
CONSUL TANT is and shall at all times remain, as to the CITY, a wholly
independent contractor. Neither the CITY nor any of its agents shall have control over the
conduct of CONSUL TANT or any of the CONSUL TANT's employees, except as herein set
forth, and CONSUL TANT is free to dispose of all portions of its time and activities which it
is not obligated to devote to the CITY in such a manner and to such persons, firms, or
corporations as the CONSUL TANT wishes except as expressly provided in this Agreement.
CONSUL TANT shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of the
Page 8of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-11
CITY or otherwise act on behalf of the CITY as an agent. CONSUL TANT shall not, at any
time or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents, servants or employees, are in
any manner agents, servants or employees of CITY. CONSUL TANT agrees to pay all
required taxes on amounts paid to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, and to indemnify
and hold the CITY harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest
asserted against the CITY by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by
this Agreement. CONSUL TANT shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law
regarding CONSUL TANT and its employees. CONSUL TANT further agrees to indemnify
and hold the CITY harmless from any failure of CONSUL TANT to comply with applicable
workers' compensation laws. The CITY shall have the right to offset against the amount of
any fees due to CONSUL TANT under this Agreement any amount due to the CITY from
CONSUL TANT as a result of its failure to promptly pay to the CITY any reimbursement or
indemnification arising under this Article.
The titles used in this Agreement are for general reference only and are not
part of the Agreement.
6.10 Entire Agreement
This Agreement, including any other documents incorporated herein by
specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and
CONSUL TANT and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements,
either written or oral. This Agreement may be modified or amended, or provisions or
breach may be waived, only by subsequent written agreement signed by both parties.
6.11 Construction
In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the
interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be
resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who
causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who
drafted that portion of the Agreement.
6.12 Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies
Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under
this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this
Agreement. In no event shall the making by the CITY of any payment to CONSUL TANT
constitute or be construed as a waiver by the CITY of any breach of covenant, or any
default which may then exist on the part of CONSULTANT, and the making of any such
payment by the CITY shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to
the CITY with regard to such breach or default.
Page 9of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-12
6.13 Severability
If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
6.14 Notice
Except as otherwise required by law, any payment, notice or other communication
authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received
on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during
CONSUL TANT's or CITY's regular business hours or (b) on the third business day
following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses listed below,
or at such other address as one party may notify the other:
To CITY:
Joel Rojas, AICP, Community Development Director
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
To CONSUL TANT:
Arborgate Consulting, Inc.
Attn: Greg Applegate
1131 Lucinda Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Page 10of11
R6876-0001\1585814v3. doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
the date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
By: __________ _
City Clerk
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
("CONSUL TANT")
Gregory Applegate, CEO
Juliet Applegate, Treasurer
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
("CITY")
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney
Page 11 of 11
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc Agreement for On-Call Professional/ Technical Services
O-14
Exhibit "A":
City's Local View Restoration Guidelines and Procedures
Exhibit "A"
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc
O-15
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
FOR
RESTORATION OF VIEWS WHERE
FOLIAGE IS INVOLVED (VIEW RESTORATION PERMITS)
AND PRESERVATION OF VIEWS WHERE FOLIAGE IS INVOLVED
(CODE ENFORCEMENT)
ADOPTED ON:
July 20, 2010
Community Development Department
O-16
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................ 2
II. DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3
111. ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA .................................................................. .4
IV. APPLICATION PROCEDURES ................................................................................ 6
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 9
VI. COMMISSION ACTION ......................................................................................... 15
VII. APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION ................................................................. 21
VIII. VIEW PRESERVATION ......................................................................................... 22
ATTACHMENTS
Notice of Intent to File a View RestorationNiew Preservation Permit Application Form
View RestorationNiew Preservation Permit Application Form
View Restoration Permit Early Neighbor Consultation Process
View RestorationNiew Preservation Permit Process Flowchart
View RestorationNiew Preservation Appeal Process Flowchart
Map of Miraleste Recreation and Park District Boundaries
List of Streets within the Miraleste Homeowners' Association
RPV Development Code Section 17.02.040
Sample View Restoration Private Agreement
Documentation of Existing View or Foliage Form
O-17
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
I. PURPOSE
A. The View Restoration Commission was created in accordance with Article 17
of Paragraph A of Section 2 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners
Association and the City of Rancho Palos Verdes City Council Cooperative View
Preservation and Restoration Ordinance, which was passed by the voters of the City on
November 7, 1989. The Ordinance has been codified into the City's Municipal Code as
Section 17.02.040, View Preservation and Restoration.
B. The ballot measure, which was approved by the voters, states the purposes
of the Ordinance as follows:
"The hillsides of the City constitute a limited natural resource in their
scenic value to all residents of and visitors to the City. The hillsides
provide potential vista points and view lots. The City's General Plan
recognizes these natural resources and calls for their protection. The
public health, safety and welfare of the City require prevention of
needless destruction and impairment of these limited vista points and
view lots. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the health, safety
and general welfare of the public by accomplishing the purposes set
forth below, and this Ordinance shall be administered in accordance with
such purposes. Where this Ordinance is in conflict with other City
ordinances, the stricter shall apply.
Specifically, this Ordinance:
1. Protects, enhances and perpetuates views available to property
owners and visitors because of the unique topographical features of the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. These views provide unique and irreplaceable
assets to the City and its neighboring communities and provide for this
and future generations examples of the unique physical surroundings
which are characteristic of the City.
2. Defines and protects finite visual resources by establishing limits
which construction and plant growth can attain before encroaching onto
a view.
3. Insures that the development of each parcel of land or additions to
residences or structures occur in a manner which is harmonious and
maintains neighborhood compatibility and the character of contiguous
sub-community development as defined in the General Plan.
4. Requires the pruning of dense foliage or tree growth which alone, or
in conjunction with construction, exceeds defined limits."
Page 2
O-18
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
Thus, the general purpose of the Ordinance is to promote the health, safety and
general welfare of the residents of the City, by balancing the rights of the residential
property owner with foliage against the rights of the residential property owner to have a
view from a viewing area restored so that it can be enjoyed, when that view has been
significantly impaired by foliage.
C. The Planning Commission accomplishes its purpose through a process of
View Restoration Permit application, site inspection, public hearings and a decision on
the application. The Commission's jurisdiction is limited to issues regarding view
impairment caused by foliage, through the issuance of View Restoration Permits, and
appeals of City Tree Review Permits and view preservation determinations.
0. View restoration requests involving trees located on City-owned property,
such as public parks, parkways and medians along public streets, are administered by
City Staff through the issuance of a City Tree Review Permit issued pursuant to Section
17.76.100 of the Municipal Code. Staff decisions on City Tree Review Permits, and
view preservation determinations are appealable to the Planning Commission. When
reviewing Staff decisions regarding City Street Tree Review Permits, the Commission
shall utilize the same process as is followed when the Commission reviews a View
Restoration Permit application, excluding the early neighbor consultation process.
Decisions of the Planning Commission on all view related permits are appealable to the
City Council.
11. DEFINITIONS
A. Viewing Area
Section 17.02.040 (A)(15) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines
"viewing area" as follows:
"Viewing area" means that area of a structure (excluding bathrooms.
hallways, garages or closets) or that area of a lot (excluding the setback areas}
where the owner and City determine the best and most important view exists. In
structures, the finished floor elevation of any viewing area must be at or above
the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building nearest
to said viewing area."
B. View
Section 17.02.040 (A)(14) of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code defines
"view" as follows:
"On the Palos Verdes Peninsuf a, it is quite common to have a near view
and a far view because of the nature of many of the hills on the peninsula.
Therefore, a 'view', which is protected by this section, is as follows:
Page 3
O-19
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
a. A 'near view' which is defined as a scene located on the
peninsula including, but not limited to, a valley, ravine, equestrian trail,
pastoral environment or any natural setting; and/or
b. A 'far view• which is defined as a scene located off the
peninsula including, but not limited to, the ocean, Los Angeles basin,
city lights at night, harbor, Vincent Thomas Bridge, shoreline or off
shore islands.
A 'View• which is protected by this Section shaJI not include vacant land
that is developable under the city code, distant mountain areas not normally
visible nor the sky, either above distant mountain areas or above the height of off
shore islands. A 'View• may extend in any horizontal direction {360 degrees of
horizantal arc) and shall be considered as a single view even if broken into
segments by foliage, structures or other interference."
Ill. ESTABLISHING THE VIEWING AREA
A Section 17.02.040 (8)(5) establishes the procedure for determining the
"viewing area" as follows:
"The determination of a viewing area shall be made by balancing the nature
of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or lot
from where the view is taken. Once finally determined for a particular application,
the viewing area may not be changed for any subsequent application. In the
event the city and owner cannot agree on the viewing area, the decision of the
city shall control. A property owner may appeal the determination of viewing
area. In such event, the decision on the viewing area will be made by the body
making the final decision on the application. A property owner may preserve his
or her right to dispute the decision on viewing area for a subsequent application
without disputing the decision on a pending application by filing a statement to
that effect and indicating the viewing area the property owner believes to be more
appropriate. The statement shall be filed with the city prior to consideration of
the pending application by the City."
B. The "viewing area" of the applicant's property is where the best and most
important view is taken. The determination of the "viewing area" is made "by balancing
the nature of the view to be protected and the importance of the area of the structure or
lot from where the view is taken". After adoption of a Resolution or after a decision is
rendered on a View Restoration Permit, View Preservation Application, or City Tree
Review Permit, the applicant(s), foliage owner(s) or any interested person may file a
timely appeal (accompanied with the appeal fee established by the City Council) of the
City's determination of the viewing area.
1. On developed lots, the "viewing area" may be located on any level
surface within the house (excluding bathrooms, closets, hallways or garages), which is
Page 4
O-20
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
at or above the existing grade adjacent to the exterior wall of the part of the building
nearest to the "viewing area" or within the buildable area of the lot. A viewing area may
be located on a patio, deck, balcony or lawn area which is adjacent to the primary
structure (generally within ten feet) and which is located on the same general grade on
the lot as the primary structure, excluding the required setback areas and used as a
gathering area. In determining the viewing area on a developed lot, greater weight
generally will be given to locations within the primary structure where a view is taken
than to locations outside of the primary structure where a view is taken, unless no view
is taken from within the primary structure.
2. On properties where the applicant claims that he or she has a view
from one or more locations either within or outside of the primary structure, it must be
determined where the best and most important view is taken to determine the "viewing
area" which is to be protected. The "viewing area" may only include multiple rooms or
locations on the applicant's property if those locations share the same view.
3.. The "viewing area" may only be located on a second (or higher) story
of a structure if:
a. The construction of that portion of the structure did not require
approval of a height variation permit or variance, pursuant to Chapter 17.02.040 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code, or would not have required such a permit if that
Section had been in effect at the time that portion of the structure was constructed; or
b. The viewing area is located in a part of the structure that constitutes
the primary living area of the house, which is the living room, dining room, family room
or kitchen. However, the viewing area may be located in the master bedroom, if a view
is not taken from one of the rooms comprising the primary living area, and the master
bedroom is located on the same story of the house as the primary living area.
4. In documenting the views, Staff usually will conduct the view analysis
in a natural standing position. In those cases where the view is enjoyed from a seated
position, Staff will verify if that is the case, and if so, will conduct the view analysis from
the seated position in that area at a height of not less than three (3) feet, six (6) inches.
5. Situations involving residential remodels that affect previously existing
viewing areas:
a. If a residence is legally remodeled whereby the viewing area,
which had been established previously through the issuance of an approved View
Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit, is eliminated, the approved
View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit shall remain in full
force and effect, unless a new application is filed by the subject property owner, and
the prior determination is amended or repealed by a subsequent decision of the
Planning Commission or City Council or Community Development Director.
Page 5
O-21
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
b. If a residence is legally remodeled whereby the viewing area,
which had been established previously through the issuance of an approved View
Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit, is modified so that the
viewing area is in a different location in the residence or is significantly altered by the
remodel, a new viewing area in the remodeled structure may be established by the
Planning Commission or City Council or Community Development Director pursuant to
a decision on a new View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit
application filed by the subject property owner. In such situations, any previously issued
View Restoration, View Preservation or City Tree Review Permit decision may be
entirely or partially amended or repealed by the subsequent decision of the Planning
Commission or City Council or Community Development Director.
IV. APPLICATION PROCEDURES
A. Once an applicant completes the early neighbor consultation process
described in Section V-A (Mandatory Findings) of these Guidelines and the view
problem is not resolved and the applicant wishes to proceed, the applicant(s) may
complete and submit a View Restoration Permit application form (see attached form) to
the City's Department of Community Development, accompanied by the appropriate
filing fees, in order to initiate a formal request for a View Restoration Permit.
B. It should be noted that the fees required for a View Restoration Permit are
established by the City Council by resolution.
C. The following fee structure pertains to View Restoration Permits only and is
designed so that the applicant pays two separate flat fees as follows:
1. The first fee is a fixed amount that is paid by an applicant to cover the
City's costs associated with processing steps, such as reviewing the application for
completeness, conducting the initial site visit and processing a formal application from
submittal through a Planning Commission decision. Specifically, said fees would cover
the costs of reviewing an application for completeness, conducting site visits, attending
the public hearing(s) and preparing the Staff Report(s) and Resolution(s).
2. The second fee or follow-up fee is a fixed amount established by City
Council resolution that would be paid by an applicant if an application is approved by
the Planning Commission. Specifically, this fee would cover the review of the
trimming/removal bids, the monitoring of the work, and the documentation of the
restored view.
3. The establishment of a trust deposit account by an applicant to cover
the cost of the actual foliage trimming/removal, as described in Section Vl-K
(Commission Action) is separate from the two processing fees described herein.
D. Once a formal View Restoration Permit application has been submitted, the
City will review the application to determine if the information is complete, before
Page 6
O-22
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
beginning processing the application. If any information is missing or components of
the application are incomplete, the applicant will be notified of any deficiencies in
writing, and the application will be held in abeyance until the necessary materials are
received by the City. If an applicant does not submit the necessary information and the
application remains incomplete for six (6) months, the City shall administratively
withdraw the application.
E. Once the application is deemed complete, the following sequence of steps
shall occur in order to process an application for a View Restoration Permit (also see
attached flow chart):
1. Staff notifies the foliage owner(s), in writing, that a formal request for
view restoration has been filed with the City, attaching a copy of the application.
2. Staff schedules and conducts site visit(s) to the applicant's and foliage
owner's properties. During the first site visit to the foliage owner's property, Staff will
inquire as to whether the foliage owner wishes to have the Commission members visit
their property. A foliage owner may request Commissioners visit his/her property in
order to fully assess the case or demonstrate unique site conditions, such as special
landscaping, slope stability or privacy concerns. Requests for the Commission to visit a
foliage owner's property must be made in writing by the foliage owner and will be
honored by the Commission.
3. Staff prepares a Staff Report to the Planning Commission, which will
include the following:
a. Application form;
b. Early Neighbor Consultation documentation;
c. An analysis of the six mandatory findings as set forth in Section
17.02.040(C)(2)(c) of the City's Municipal Code;
d. Recommendation(s) on the disposition of the application;
e. Determination if any of the Commission members are ineligible to
participate on the application, based on a conflict of interest due to the proximity of a
Commissioner's properties to the property that is the subject of the application. If a
Commissioner owns property that is located within 500 feet of the subject property, a
conflict is presumed;
f. A tentative site visitation schedule for Commission members.
4. Staff establishes a date for the public hearing on the application and
provides written notice of the hearing to the applicant(s) and the foliage owner(s) a
minimum of 30 days prior to the hearing date. Notice of the hearing date shall also be
Page 7
O-23
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City or clearly posted on each
applicant's property.
5. Staff distributes the staff report to members of the Planning
Commission a minimum of two weeks prior to the actual hearing date, and the
Commissioners visit the site(s).
a. Commissioners are required to visit the applicant's property.
Eligibility to participate in the decision on a View Restoration Permit application is
dependant on the Commissioner visiting the applicant's site(s) prior to the public
hearing. If an applicant refuses access to his or her site, the request for a View
Restoration Permit will be denied.
b. Commissioners will visit the foliage owner's property if requested to
do so by the foliage owner(s), in writing. Even if no request is made, Commissioners
frequently will attempt to visit a foliage owner's property unless the foliage owner denies
a Commissioner access. Although a foliage owner has discretion as to whether to allow
Commissioners into his/ her property, by not allowing site visits of their property, it may
be more difficult for Commissioners to evaluate issues raised by the foliage owner when
considering an application.
c. Commissioners are responsible for arranging visits to the site(s).
However, no more than three (3) Commissioners may visit the site at the same time.
6. The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing pursuant to the
Commission's adopted Administrative Procedures. The Chairperson's instructions to
the audience will generally follow these guidelines:
a. Any person desiring to speak must first be recognized by the
Chairperson.
b. All participants must speak from the podium.
c. All speakers must first state their full names and addresses, and the
names of any persons in whose behalf they are appearing (if any).
d. All comments must be made clearly and audibly.
e. Repetition of comments should be avoided, and speakers will be
discouraged from reading a submission which has been copied and distributed to the
Commission or is contained in the agenda packet.
f. Normally, the applicant(s) and foliage owner(s) will be limited to a
five (5) minute presentation and a three (3) minute rebuttal (if requested). All other
persons will be generally limited to a three (3) minute presentation each.
Page 8
O-24
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
g. Except when necessary for immediate clarification of a particular
point, no person shall be allowed to speak a second time until all others wishing to
speak have had an opportunity to do so, and then only at the direction of the
Chairperson.
h. Due to unusual complexity of the case, submission of expert
testimony or a large number of speakers on a particular case, the Chairperson, at his or
her discretion, may allocate more than five (5) minutes per side and allow those wishing
to speak on each side to designate a spokesperson or to divide the allotted time among
themselves.
7. After the public hearing is closed and the Commission has reached a
decision on the application, a resolution reflecting the Commission's decision shall be
adopted by the Commission. The resolution shall be drafted by Staff and, where
appropriate, reviewed by the City Attorney. If necessary, at a subsequent meeting, the
resolution may be placed on the Commission's Consent Calendar for final action.
Adoption of the resolution shall result in the issuance of a View Restoration Permit or
denial of the request.
F. Foliage not Specifically Designated
Conditions of approval of View Restoration and Preservation Permit Applications specify
individual trees or plants to be trimmed or removed. However, view-impairing foliage
often grows in clusters or is screened by foliage in the foreground so that individual
plants are not readily discernible. Therefore, foliage which is located on the same
property and is in the view that was analyzed by Staff but was not specifically
designated in the view analysis because it was behind other foliage which was
specifically designated in the view analysis and was trimmed pursuant to the decision
and the conditions of approval, shall be trimmed to the same height that was
established by the Commission, for the designated foliage and the applicant shall pay
the additional expense of having the foliage trimmed.
G. Once the work is performed, Staff will document the applicant's view with
photographs taken from the applicant's viewing area with a standard camera lens that
will not alter the actual image that is being documented from the viewing area. The
photographs will be kept on file with the City and copies shall be given to all involved
parties to maintain the foliage in accordance with the City's final decision.
V. MANDATORY FINDINGS
Section 17.02.040(C)(2){c) of the Municipal Code requires that, in order for a View
Restoration notice to be issued, the Planning Commission must make the following six
mandatory findings:
A. "The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation
process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts."
Page 9
O-25
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
1. Each applicant must provide evidence of early neighbor consultation
with each foliage owner, utilizing the process described below.
2. Evidence of adequate early neighbor consultation shall consist of each
applicant filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application" with the
City prior to the submittal of a formal View Restoration Permit Application. Said notice
shall be on a form provided by the City and shall be signed by the owner of the
applicant's property. Each applicant shall indicate, by marking the appropriate box on
the "Notice of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application" that the applicant has
made an attempt to contact the foliage owner prior to submittal and shall submit written
proof of that attempt in the form of a copy of a registered letter and the return receipt.
The notice shall include a signed statement from the applicant agreeing to meet with
City representatives and each foliage owner that will be named in the pending
application, to attempt to resolve any issues between the parties. The notice also shall
indicate at least three days and times when the applicant is available to attend the pre-
application meeting (see attached flowchart).
3. Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an applicant, the
Community Development Director shall provide written notification to each foliage owner
listed in the Notice, via certified mail, of the pending application. The City's notification
letter shall also request that the foliage owner attend one pre-application meeting at City
Hall to discuss the City's view restoration process with City representatives and the
applicant(s). The notification letter to each foliage owner shall contain three possible
meeting times (date and time) identified by the City from which the foliage owner may
select. The determination of the three meetings shall be based on the applicants' and
City representatives' availability. The notification letter shall require that the foliage
owner respond back to the City in writing, within 10 working days of the City's certified
mailing of the notification, with one selected date.
4. If any foliage owner responds in writing with a date selection within the
specified time frame, the Community Development Director shall arrange a pre-
application meeting at City Hall between the applicants, the foliage owners and City
representatives. Notice of the meeting shall be provided by the City to all parties, at
least 5 working days prior to the meeting date.
The purpose of the pre-application meeting is to discuss the City's view
restoration process with the affected parties and attempt to resolve the issues in order
to avoid the filing of a formal application.
5. The initial pre-application meeting arranged by the City shall occur no
later than 60 calendar days from the date that a "Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit Application" is filed by an applicant with the City. Additional pre-
application meetings with the City shall occur only if there is written consent from every
applicant and foliage owner. This does not preclude foliage owners and applicants from
meeting on their own with no City participation. If the applicant requests more than one
Page 10
O-26
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
meeting within a 12-month period, then the City shall charge the applicant a mediation
fee (as established by City Council resolution) for each additional meeting, and the
applicant shall pay the fee to the City prior to the scheduling of any additional mediation
meetings.
6. The Community Development Director or his/her designee shall attend
the pre-application meeting. In addition, a view restoration mediator shall attend the pre-
application meeting. Mediators who reside within 500 feet of the applicant or foliage
owner properties are ineligible to participate in the pre-application meeting.
7. Once an applicant submits a "Notice of Intent to File a View
Restoration Permit Application" and the City provides notification to a foliage owner of
the pending application and requests their attendance at a pre-application meeting, the
early ·neighbor consultation process shall be deemed to be terminated and the
applicant(s) may immediately file a formal View Restoration Permit Application with the
City if any of the following occurs:
a. A foliage owner fails to respond in writing with a date selection
within the time frame specified in the City's notification letter;
b. A foliage owner notifies the City in writing that he/she does not wish
to attend the pre-application meeting;
c. A foliage owner fails to attend the arranged pre-application meeting;
or
d. Unless waived in writing by every applicant for a particular
application, sixty (60) calendar days have elapsed from the date that a complete "Notice
of Intent to File a View Restoration Permit Application'; was submitted to the City by the
applicant( s ).
8. If an agreement is reached between the parties as a result of the pre-
application meeting, Staff and/or the Mediator will encourage the participants to prepare
and will assist in the preparation of the private agreement for the parties to sign (see
attached sample).
9. At the public hearing, the applicant may be asked to explain his/her
specific efforts to comply with the ordinance requirement for attempting to resolve
conflict.
B. "Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's
viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when
combined with foliage located on more than one property."
Page 11
O-27
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
1. After the location of the "viewing area" on the applicant's property is
determined, the Commission must find whether foliage, which exceeds the lower of
sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, significantly impairs a view from
the "viewing area".
2. To determine which of the two measurements referenced in the
paragraph above is the lowest, the sixteen (16} foot height measurement shall be
measured from the base of the plant or tree (where it emerges from the ground).
3. For structures with multiple roofline heights that would block the view if
the foliage were not present, foliage on the property, shall be lowered to the roofline of
that portion of the structure that otherwise would block the view, as illustrated below in
Figure 1. Where a structure with multiple rooftine heights does not otherwise block a
view, foliage on the property shall be trimmed to the applicable height limit set forth in
this paragraph "B".
Foliage 'A'
Shallbe -"--
trimmedto
the height of
Roofline 'A'
Figure 1
Roofline 'B'
_,,...__ .A-. .,,...._ -/'-... ,,..._ ,,,..._, ~ ............. .,,...__
_,,.__ Roofline 'A'
Multiple Roofline Structure with Foliage
(Example: Ocean view from the applicant's viewing area)
.,._. Foliage 'B'
Shall be
-"--trimmed to
the height of
Roofline 'B'
4. Section 17.76.030 of the City's Development Code limits the height of
hedges. A "hedge" is defined by the Code as "shrubbery or trees planted and
maintained in such a manner as to create a physicat barrier." A hedge can be included
in a View Restoration Permit application, if the top of the hedge exceeds sixteen feet,,
the Planning Commission may require a hedge to be trimmed to the lesser of sixteen
(16) feet or the ridgeline of the primary structure, if necessary to restore the view.
However, if the top of the hedge is below sixteen feet or the ridgeline of the primary
structure, whichever measurement is lower, these cases shall be referred to the City's
Code Enforcement Division for resolution. Foliage which is determined by the Los
Angeles County Fire Department to be a fire hazard also shall be referred to the City's
Code Enforcement Division for immediate resolution.
5. The Planning Commission may, at its discretion, require the review of
any case by a qualified biologist or ornithologist, soils engineer, landscape architect,
arborist, or other appropriate professionals. The Staff shall be responsible for obtaining
qualified consultants to review and comment on the specific cases requested by the
Commission. In cases where expert advice is sought by the City, the applicant(s) shall
Page 12
O-28
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
be responsible for bearing those costs. Staff will advise the applicant of the estimated
additional expense for the expert advice. If the applicant refuses to pay for that
expense and does not augment the trust deposit to cover that expense, then the
application will be administratively withdrawn by City Staff. If the applicant agrees to pay
for the expert advice, and the advice is provided to the Commission, the Commission,
again at its discretion, may abide by, or reject, the advice of the consultant(s).
Commission decisions must be supported by substantial evidence in the record before
the Commission.
6. The Commission shall only take action on foliage which significantly
impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area. Foliage which does not significantly
impair a view may remain in the applicant's view frame. The following criteria may be
used to help determine whether a view is being "significantly" impaired by foliage:
a. Foliage Position Within the View Frame. Foliage that is located in
the center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant view
impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame.
b. Single-component View vs. Multi-component View. Some view
frames contain a combination of different view components, such as a view of the
ocean, harbor and City lights (multi-component view); while some view frames consist
entirely of one component, such as only a view of the ocean (single-component view).
Foliage that entirely obscures one of the components of a "multi-component" view is
more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage that impairs
the same degree of view of a "single-component" view (see diagram befow).
c. Prominent Landmarks. Greater weight should be given to
prominent landmarks or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent
Thomas Bridge, harbor, shoreline, distant mountain areas, city skyfines, and Channel
Islands. As a result, foliage which impairs a view of any of these landmarks is more
likely to be found to create a significant view impairment.
7 '\\
Page 13
O-29
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
C. "The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of which is
less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line."
Staff from the Department of Community Development will determine the
distance from the applicant's property line to the nearest property line of the site
containing the foliage under consideration.
D. "The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view
impairing vegetation when the lot from which the view is taken was created."
1. Where the applicant's property and the property containing the foliage
in question, are both located in the same subdivision or in adjacent subdivisions, Staff
will determine the date at which the lots were created. Generally, the lots' recordation
date shall be the lots' creation date.
2. In other cases, the following sources of information may be used to
determine the time when the foliage under consideration began to impair the view:
a. Aerial photographs maintained by the City.
b. Other photographs taken on known dates indicating the presence of
vegetation or lack of vegetation.
c. Property descriptions prepared in connection with the sale of
property (e.g. multiple listing information, newspaper advertisements,
real estate flyers, etc.).
d. Testimony of witnesses.
e. Any reports documenting land conditions or site surveys that include
information about vegetation.
3. Recorded lot line adjustments shall not be considered to create a new
lot for the purpose of determining the date when the lot was created.
E. "Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the
foliage is located."
1. The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor and/or
outdoor privacy" shall be on the foliage owner. The Commission will make a
determination on a case-by-case basis.
Page 14
O-30
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
2. Given the variety and number of options which are available to
preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.
F. "For property located within the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation
and Parks District, the Commission shall also find that removal or trimming of
foliage strikes a reasonable balance between meeting the purposes of Section
17 .02.040 set forth in Section 1 of the Ordinance approved by the voters on
November 7, 1989, and preserving the historical development of the Miraleste
Recreation and Parks District with large numbers of trees."
1. The Miraleste Recreation and Parks District has adopted a pmcedure
for responding to view restoration and maintenance requests for foliage located on its
property. Such properties owned by the District are not subject to the City's View
Restoration Permit process.
2. Properties located within the boundaries of the District, but owned by a
person or entity other than the District, are subject to the View Restoration Permit
process and the additional finding above.
3. A map of the boundaries of the Miraleste Recreation and Parks District
and a list of the streets within the Miraleste Homeowners' Association are attached.
VI. COMMISSION ACTION
A. If the Commission is able to make all of the mandatory findings set forth in
Section V (Mandatory Findings} above, then the Commission must determine the
action(s) which must be taken to restore the view. Such action(s) may include culling,
lacing, trimming, or removal of the foliage, which is significantly impairing the view from
the viewing area. These terms are defined as follows:
1. Culling shall mean the removal of dead, decayed, or weak limbs or
foliage from a tree or shrub.
2. Lacing shall mean a comprehensive method of pruning that
systematically removes excess foliage from a tree or shrub, but maintains its shape.
3. Trimming shall mean the removal of limbs or foliage from a tree or
shrub. Trimming includes, but is not limited to:
a. "Crown reducing", which is a comprehensive method of pruning that
reduces a tree's or shrub's height and/or spread. Crown reduction entails the reduction
of the top, sides or individual limbs by means of removal of the leaders or the longest
portion of limbs to a lateral branch large enough to assume the terminal; and,
Page 15
O-31
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
b. "Crown raising", which is a comprehensive method of pruning that
removes limbs and foliage from the lower part of a tree or shrub in order to raise the
canopy of the tree or shrub over the view.
c. "Topping", which is the cutting of branches and/or trunk of a tree or
shrub in a manner which substantially reduces the overall height of the tree or shrub.
4. Removal shall mean the removal and disposal of a tree or shrub, by
grinding the shrub's or tree's stump to the existing grade or a depth below existing
grade to be determined by the Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis. If
existing topography or other physical limitations identified by the tree service contractor
preclude mechanical stump grinding, the stump shall be flush cut to existing grade or as
close to existing grade as possible, as determined by the tree service contractor. If a
foliage owner wishes to keep the stump, he or she may so elect; then, in no case, may
the remaining stump height exceed 18 inches above grade. Unless otherwise directed
by the Commission in connection with the decision on a particular application, removal
of the foliage shall not include the removal and disposal of a plant's root system.
B. If any tree or shrub that is ordered to be culled, laced, or trimmed dies within
two years of the initial work being performed due to the performance of the work, the
applicant or any subsequent owner of the applicant's property shall be responsible for
providing a replacement tree or shrub to the foliage owner. This time period may be
extended by the Commission if evidence is provided by a certified arborist that a longer
monitoring period is necessary for a specific type of tree or shrub. However, if the city
arborist determines that culling, lacing, or trimming said tree or shrub will in all
probability cause the tree or shrub to die, and the foliage owner chooses not to accept
removal and replacement as an option, either in writing or in public testimony during the
public hearing, then the applicant will not be responsible for providing a replacement
tree or shrub to the foliage owner. The replacement foliage shall be provided in
accordance with the specifications described in section Vl-E (Commisston Action) of
these Guidelines. If the work is performed by the foliage owner, said foliage owner shall
forfeit the right to replacement foliage if the trimmed tree dies. If a tree or shrub dies it
is subject to removal pursuant to Section 8.24.060 (property maintenance) of the RPV
Municipal Code.
C. Complete removal of any remaining portion of the tree or shrub that does not
significantly impair the view will only be ordered if the owner of the property where the
foliage is located consents to the complete removal of the remaining tree or shrub and
the Commission finds:
1. That upon the advice of the City's arborist, culling, lacing, or trimming
the foliage to sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line is likely to kill the tree or shrub or
threaten the public health, safety and welfare; or
Page 16
O-32
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
2. That upon the advice of the City's arborist, culling, lacing, or trimming
the foliage to sixteen ( 16) feet or the ridgeline will destroy the aesthetic value of the
foliage that is to be trimmed, laced or reduced in height.
D. In order to balance trimming, the commission may require trimming portions
of a tree or shrub that are below 16 feet or the ridgeline provided the foliage owner
agrees. If a foliage owner agrees to such trimming, then he must do so either in
writing, within 30 days of final approval of a View Restoration or View Preservation
Permit or in public testimony taken during the hearing. If the foliage owner does not
agree, then the foliage owner will not be required to trim, lace or prune below that level
and the applicant will not be required to pay for the additional work.
E. The Commission also may order the applicant to replace trees or shrubs
which· have been removed if the owner of the property where the foliage ls located
consents to the replacement of the tree or shrub and the Commission finds:
1. That removal without replacement foliage will cause a signfficant
adverse impact on:
a. The public health, safety and welfare;
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to help stabilize a slope or minimize slope erosion.
b. The privacy of the owner of the property where the foliage is located;
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage to mitigate the loss of privacy provided by prewexisting foliage is
needed to help screen or block views from the applicant's property into the foliage
owner's usable yard area (deck, patio, pool/spa area, barbecue area) and/or residence
(unless interior privacy can be achieved by other means).
c. Shade provided to the dwelling or the property where the foliage is
located;
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shade to an area of the foliage
owner's property, such as a usable yard area {deck, patio, pool/spa area, barbecue
area) or residence, that is receiving shade from the foliage that is to be removed.
d. The energy-efficiency of the dwelling where the foliage is located;
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to help cool an area of the foliage owner's residence
in the summer months that is being kept cool by foliage that is to be removed.
Page 17
O-33
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
e. The health or viability of the remaining landscaping where the
foliage is located; or
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to help provide shade to existing sun-sensitive
landscaping on the foliage owner's property, that is receiving shade from the foliage that
is to be removed.
f. The integrity of the landscaping of the property on which the foliage
is located.
An example of this would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that is a focal point or integral
element of an existing landscaping plan.
g. The function of the landscaping as screening of an unfinished wall or
structural elements of a deck or other similar structure on an adjacent property.
An example of th~s would be a situation where there is evidence before the Commission
that replacement foliage is needed to replace foliage that provides effective screening of
unsightly feature(s) located on an adjacent upslope property. Such features may include
but are not limited to unfinished walls, or the support elements underneath decks and
structures.
F. The Commission shall ensure that replacement foliage is reasonably
comparable to the foliage removed in terms of function and/or aesthetics while
understanding that the replacement foliage will not be of the same height, size and
breadth as the pre-existing mature foliage. For example, if replacement foliage is
determined to be necessary to replace foliage located on a slope, the replacement
foliage should be of a woody-root species variety that provides soil stability. The
selection of the type of replacement foliage shall be made by the foliage owner subject
to approval by the Community Development Director.
G. The Commission is not obligated to order replacement of every tree or shrub
ordered removed with a new tree or shrub. For example, two new replacement trees
may be able to provide the same level of privacy as five pre-existing trees that are
ordered removed. Replacement trees or shrubs generally should be of a 15-gallon size,
and should not be larger than a 24-inch box size, unless warranted by the need to
reasonably protect privacy or exceptional circumstances and the tree or shrub that is
being replaced is substantially larger than a 24-inch box size.
H. The Commission may require that a long-term foliage maintenance schedule
be incorporated into the conditions of approval of an approved View Restoration Permit.
The purpose of the maintenance schedule is to dictate the minimum frequency of future
trimming (i.e. semi-annual, annual or biennial) based on the growth rates of the subject
foliage so as to not significantly impair a view. Alternatively, the Commission may
Page 18
O-34
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 201 O
specify the amount of allowable growth as measured with respect to a fixed point of
reference that will not significantly encroach into the view, and require that when this
point is reached, the foliage owner may be required to trim the foliage back to the height
established by the Commission. In establishing the maintenance schedule, the
Commission may take into account seasonal dormant periods of the subject foliage,
when trimming is least harmfulto the foliage.
I. The Commission shall require that a property owner trim or remove foliage
within ninety (90) days. If no date is specified by the Commission, the ninety day time
frame shall commence upon the receipt of a letter from the City notifying the foliage
owner to trim/remove the foliage. Such a letter is sent by the City once a trust account
has been established by the applicant for the cost of the trimming/removal and tree or
shrub replacement. Within the ninety (90) day time frame, but not less than two weeks
before the trimming/removal date, the foliage owner shall inform City Staff of the date
and approximate time the work is scheduled to occur, so that staff may be available on-
site to ensure the work is performed in accordance with the Commission's decision.
Staff strongly encourages that the foliage owner to schedule a date during the Monday
thru Friday workweek. Staffs on-site monitoring of the tree trimming/removal work shall
include, if necessary, directing the foliage owner to trim additional foliage that was not
specifically designated by the Planning Commission but found by staff to be significantly
impairing the same view after the specified foliage is trimmed, provided the Planning
Commission had imposed such a condition in its decision. Said additional foliage shall
be trimmed to the. same height that was established by the Commission for the
designated foliage and the applicant shall pay the additional expense of having the
foliage trimmed.
If evidence is provided to the Commission that a tree or shrub, subject to tree
trimming or removal, contains nests (or eggs) of birds that are designated under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Department of Fish and Game Code, the
Commission may require that the subject foliage be trimmed within a ninety (90) day
time period after the nest(s) is determined by a qualified biologist or ornithologist to be
inactive.
If evidence is provided to the Commission that it is less harmful to trim certain
foliage during the foliage's dormant period, the Commission may require that the subject
foliage be trimmed ninety (90) days from an established date. In situations where
foliage is dormant during the winter months, the Commission shall require that the
trimming be performed during the months of November through March. In situations
where the Commission determines that not all of the foliage on a property needs to be
trimmed during a specific time of the year, the Commission may take either of the
following actions:
1. Establish a specified time period for trimming the time-sensitive foliage
and establish a different time period for trimming the remaining foliage. This will require
the foliage owner to perform two separate trimming actions.
Page 19
O-35
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
2. Establish a specified time period for trimming the time-sensitive foliage
and require that the remaining foliage also be trimmed at that time.
J. Unless the Commission specifies the amount of allowable growth pursuant to
subsection Vl-H the Commission may require that all maintenance schedules
incorporated into the conditions of approval of a View Restoration Permit be reviewed at
a future date to allow the Commission an opportunity to assess the adequacy of the
maintenance schedule, as well as the foliage owner's ability to maintain the foliage in
compliance with the conditions of approval. The review date shall occur a minimum of
one year after the initial trimming is performed. The specific date shall be set by the
Commission at the time it makes its decision on a View Restoration Permit, and shall be
based on the growth rates of the subject foliage, as well as any other factors that the
Commission finds are pertinent to the decision. On or about the specified review date,
City Staff will inspect the foliage sites and transmit a brief report to the Commission
which describes whether the foliage is being maintained in accordance with the
conditions of approval. The report shall also contain a recommendation from City Staff
as to whether the maintenance schedule should be amended. The Commission shall
consider the report and determine if a public hearing to amend the conditions of
approval is necessary. If a public hearing is determined to be necessary, Staff shall
transmit to the Commission a report with recommendations for additional or modified
conditions of approval. Notice of the public hearing shall be provided in the same
manner as required by Municipal Code Section 17.02.040 for the original public hearing.
The Commission decision on the review hearing is appealable to the City Council
pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.02.040.
The Commission shall require that an applicant submit one ( 1) to three (3)
itemized estimates to the City for carrying out the work required by an approved View
Restoration Permit. The work estimate shall also include tree or shrub removal and
replacement costs for any tree or shrub that dies as a result of the ordered trimming,
provided that the tree or shrub was not a tree or shrub identified by the City Arborist as
likely to die as a result of said trimming. Said estimates shall be submitted within thirty
(30) days after the adoption of the Resolution and shall include the cost to have an ISA
certified tree trimmer or accredited arborist on site to perform or supervise the work
being done. Said estimates are to be supplied by licensed landscape or licensed tree
service contractors, acceptable to the City, which provide insurance by insurers in a
form acceptable to the City, and shall include all costs of cleanup and removal of debris.
Said insurance shall identify the property owner and the City (and its officers, agents
and employees) as additionally named insureds, and shall have a coverage amount of
no less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence and no less than $2,000,000 in the
aggregate. In addition, the applicant shall pay to the City an amount equal to the lowest
of the estimates and such funds shall be maintained by the City, in a City trust account
until completion of the work as verified by City Staff.
Upon completion of the work, the foliage owner shall submit a copy of a paid
invoice to the City. Within 10 calendar days of the submittal of the invoice and
verification by City Staff of compliance, the City shall authorize the transmittal of funds
Page 20
O-36
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
from the City trust account to the foliage owner. If there are remaining funds in the trust
account to cover the costs of removing and replacing trees or shrubs, then the funds
shall remain in the trust account for a period of two years or longer if determined by the
Planning Commission until City Staff determines that removal of dead trees or shrubs is
not warranted. A reimbursement check to the foliage owner shall be released by the
City no later than 30 days following Staffs authorization. If the paid invoice submitted by
the foliage owner is for an amount less than the funds in the City's trust account, the
foliage owner shall only be transmitted an amount equal to the actual cost of the
trimming. In such situations, the balance of the trust account (less the monies needed
to remove and replace dead trees or shrubs} shall be refunded to the applicant within 30
days of receipt of the appropriate billing. If the paid invoice submitted by the foliage
owner is for an amount that exceeds the funds in the City's trust account established for
the initial trimming or removal and replacement of trees or shrubs, the foliage owner
shall only receive the funds from the City trust account and the foliage owner shall be
responsible for paying the difference. If a foliage owner chooses to do the required
work himself/herself, the foliage owner shall not be compensated from the City trust
account and the amount in the trust account shall be refunded to the applicant(s).
If the required work as specified herein is not completed, as verified by Staff,
within the stipulated time periods, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the
City's code enforcement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work
at the subject property at the foliage owner's expense, and the applicant's deposit will
be refunded. In the event that the City is required to perform the work, the foliage
owner will be bmed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View Restoration
order. If the foliage owner does not pay the invoice, a lien or assessment may be
recorded against the foliage owner's property, pursuant to Title 8, Chapter 24 of the
Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
VII. APPEAL OF COMMISSION DECISION
A. A decision of the Commission on a view related permit is appealable to the
City Council. After considering the written and oral testimony at the appeal hearing, the
City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and approve the
application upon finding that all applicable findings have been correctly made and all
provisions of Section 17.02.040(C)(2) of the Municipal Code have been complied with;
or
2. Approve the application but impose additional or different conditions as
the City Council deems necessary to fulfit! the purposes of Section 17.02.040(C)(2); or
3. Disapprove the application upon finding that all applicable findings
cannot be made or all provisions of Section 17.02.040(C)(2} have not been complied
with; or
Page 21
O-37
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 201 O
4. Refer the matter back to the Planning Commission to conduct further
proceedings. The remanded proceedings may include the presentation of significant
new evidence which was raised in conjunction with the appeal. The City Council shall
state the ground{s) for the remand and shall give instructions to Planning Commission
concerning any error found by the City Council in the Commission's prior determination.
B. The appeal hearing may be conducted in a room other than the regular City
Council chambers (e.g. the Fireside Room at the Hesse Park Community Center). The
establishment of specific time allotments for speakers is optional and may be set or
waived by the Mayor at the Mayor's discretion. The room may be arranged in a manner
that promotes a "round table" discussion among the involved parties.
vm. VIEW PRESERVATION
With regard to foliage obstructing a view after the issuance of a View Restoration
Permit or upon the effective date of the Ordinance (November 17, 1989}, Section
17.02.040(8)(3) of the Municipal Code states:
"Foliage Obstruction. No person shall significantly impair a view from a
viewing area of a lot:
a. By permitting foliage to grow to a height exceeding the height
determined by the View Restoration or Planning Commission
through the issuance of a View Restoration Permit under
subsection C.2 of this section; or
b. If no View Restoration Permit has been issued by the View
Restoration Commission or Planning Commission, by permitting
foliage to grow to a height exceeding the lesser of:
(i) The ridge line of the primary structure on the property, or
(ii) Sixteen (16) feet.
If foliage on the property already exceeds the provisions of subdivisions (i)
and (ii) referenced above on the effective date of this Section, as approved by the
voters on November 7, 1989, and significantly impairs a view from a viewing area
of a lot, then notwithstanding whether any person has sought or obtained
issuance of a view restoration permit, the foliage owner shall not let the foliage
exceed the height existing on the effective date of this section (November 17,
1989). The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that the owners of foliage
which violates the provisions of this paragraph on the effective date of this
section shall not allow the foliage to increase in height. This paragraph does not
'grandfather' or otherwise permit such foliage to continue to block a view."
Page 22
O-38
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 201 o
A. View Preservation After the Issuance of a View Restoration Permit
(Maintenance Trimming)
1. After the issuance of a View Restoration Permit (VRP) and the initial
foliage trimming and/or removal has been completed in accordance with the approved
permit, Staff shall document the restored view through the use of color or black and
white photography or other method approved by the Commission. The photographic
documentation shall be made part of the City's permanent records and shall be kept on
file at the Community Development Department. Once the initial work associated with
an approved View Restoration Permit is performed and the restored view is
documented with a photograph, the photographic documentation of the restored view
shall be used as a benchmark by City Staff for making a determination of significant
view impairment in any future view preservation enforcement actions that become
necessary.
Upon receipt of a complaint from a View Restoration Permit (VRP)
applicant or the subsequent owner of an applicant's property, that foliage subject to a
VRP decision has exceeded the height limit imposed by a View Restoration Permit, City
Staff shall visit the site and examine the photographic documentation on file or other
evidence to determine whether the foliage has been maintained in a manner that is
consistent with the approved View Restoration Permit (VRP). If foliage which is the
subject of an approved VRP exceeds the height limits prescribed in the approved VRP,
the City shall order that the foliage owner bring the foliage into compliance within 30
days. If the foliage owner does not comply within the specified time, the City will impose
a fine (established by Council Resolution) and the matter will be forwarded to the City
Attorney's office. Alternatively, if the foliage does not exceed the height limits
prescribed in the approved VRP, the City will impose a fine (established by Council
resolution) against the applicant. If City Staff determines that the foliage is in
compliance with the VRP, no further action will be taken in response to the complaint.
Unless specified in a Commission approved long-term maintenance schedule, a
property owner shall be limited to filing a complaint about foliage subject to an approved
VRP, without payment of a fee a maximum of once every twelve (12) months. If a
property owner wishes to file a complaint more frequently than once every twelve (12}
months, the property owner may do so upon payment of a fee established by City
Council Resolution.
2. If foliage not subject to the View Restoration Permit subsequently
grows into the VRP applicant's documented view, said new foliage shall be considered
significant view impairing foliage only if the new foliage exceeds the lesser of the ridge
line of the primary structure on the property or sixteen ( 16) feet. Upon notification from
a property owner that the new foliage has grown into the documented view, Staff will
visit the VRP applicant's property to verify that the new view-impairing foliage is not in
compliance with the foliage conditions shown in the documented photo. If such a
situation is found, then Staff shall issue a written notice to the foliage owner informing
him/her that Staff has verified that the documented view is significantly impaired by
foliage on the property. Such notice shall require that the foliage owner trim or remove
Page 23
O-39
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
the offending foliage to the condition shown in the documented view photograph on file
with the City, within 30 days of receiving such notice and maintain such foliage on a
schedule equivalent to the minimum trimming maintenance cycle imposed by the
Commission or Council for the foliage that is subject to the associated View Restoration
Permit.
3. If the maintenance trimming described in Sections Vlll-A2 and A3 is not
completed by the foliage owner as specified by City Staff, within the stipulated time
periods, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the City's code enforcement
process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work at the subject property
at the foliage owner's expense. In the event that the City is required to perform the
work, the foliage owner will be billed for all City expenses incurred in enforcing the View
Restoration permit. If the foliage owner does not pay the invoice, a lien or assessment
may b·e recorded against the foliage owner's property, pursuant to Title 8, Chapter 24 of
the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
B. View Preservation in Absence of a View Restoration Permit
1. An owner of foliage is responsible for protecting any right he or she has
to exceed the foliage height limitations that went into effect on November 17, 1989, by
submitting the appropriate documentation, which can include photographs.
2. The property owner wishing to protect his/her existing view is
responsible for submitting: 1.) documentation of the view, as it existed on or after the
effective date of the Ordinance; and/or 2.) documentation of the view impairing foliage
as it existed on November 17, 1989. Documentation shall consist of the submittal of a
"Documentation of Existing View or Foliage" Form (attached) accompanied by color or
black and white photographs, which clearly provide evidence that accurately depicts the
view and/or foliage as it existed from the property owner's viewing area on the date the
photograph was taken. The submitted documentation shall be verified by City Staff with
a visit to the view impaired site. If Staff is able to verify that the photographs accurately
depict the view from the property owner's viewing area, as defined in these Guidelines,
then the property owner's photographs will be incorporated into the City's files. If said
photographs do not accurately depict the view from the "viewing area", then Staff will
advise the property owner that the documentation has been rejected. Any verified
photographs will be kept on file in the Department of Community Development and shall
be used as a bench mark in future view preservation enforcement actions.
3. Once documentation of a view and/or foliage has been submitted to the
City and verified by City Staff, a property owner may file a Notice of Intent to File a View
Preservation Application requesting one of the following view preservation actions:
a. That foliage which exceeded the lesser of: a) the ridgeline of the
primary structure on the property; or b) sixteen ( 16) feet, and significantly impaired the
view from a viewing area of a lot on November 17, 1989 be trimmed to the height that
existed on November 17, 1989, as shown in the submitted and verified documentation;
Page 24
O-40
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
b. That foliage which exceeds the lesser of: a) the ridgeline of the
primary structure on the property; or b) sixteen ( 16) feet and has grown into a property
owner's view, as documented and verified by City Staff on or after the effective date of
the ordinance (November 17, 1989), and significantly impairs the view from a viewing
area of the lot, be trimmed so as to eliminate the significant view impairment.
4. Upon receipt of a Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation
Application, Staff will visit the applicant's property to verify if there is a significant
impairment and to eliminate the need to proceed further in the process if there is no
significant view impairment. If Staff 'determines that no significant view impairment
exists from the viewing area, then Staff shall advise the applicant that there is no need
to proceed with the Notice of Intent to File request. Notwithstanding Staff's initial field
determination, the applicant still may formaUy apply for a View Preserva'Hon Permit
seeking the Director's Final Determination on the permit request. If the Director's Final
Determination in response to said application is that View Preservation action is not
warranted, no further action by the foliage owner is necessary in response to the fifed
application. The Director's Final Determination is appealable to the Planning
Commission.
If a significant view impairment is found, then Staff shall Issue a written
notice to the foliage owner informing him/her that Staff has verified that the documented
view is significantly impaired by foliage on the property, and such notice shall request
that the foliage owner trim or remove the offending foliage to the condition shown in the
provided documented view photograph within 30 days of receiving such notice.
a. If the foliage owner voluntarily performs the necessary work within
30 days of receiving notice, then no further permit processing shall be required.
b. If no work is performed within 30 days of receiving the notice, then
the applicant may file a formal application. Once a formal View Preservation Permit
application has been submitted, a Notice of the Director's Determination shall be issued
to the applicant and foliage owner(s) giving the foliage owner ninety (90) days to
perform the necessary work.
c. The Director may require that a long-term foliage maintenance
schedule be incorporated into the conditions of approval of an approved View
Preservation Permit. The purpose of the maintenance schedule is to dictate the
minimum frequency of future trimming {i.e. semi-annual, annual or biennial) based on
the growth rates of the subject foliage so as to not significantly impair a view.
Alternatively, the Director may specify the amount of allowable growth as measured with
respect to a fixed point of reference that will not significantly encroach into the view, and
require that when this point is reached, the foliage owner may be required to trim the
foliage back to the height established by the Director. In establishing the maintenance
schedule, the Director may take into account seasonal dormant periods of the subject
foliage, when trimming is least harmful to the foliage.
Page 25
O-41
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
d. The Director's Determination may be appealed to the Planning
Commission by the applicant, the foliage owner or any interested party by filing a written
appeal and submitting the appropriate fee, as established by City Council resolution, to
the City within fifteen {15) days of the receipt of the Director's Determination Notice.
Prior to the public hearing, Commissioners shall conduct a site visit to the applicant's
property pursuant to Section JV (E)(5). Commissioners will also visit the foliage owner's
property if requested in writing to do so by the foliage owner(s). The decision of the
Commission may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant, the foliage owner or
any interested party by filing a written appeal and submitting the appropriate fee, as
established by City Council resolution, to the City within fifteen (15) days of the
Commission's decision.
5. Once the appeal process has been exhausted, the City's View
Preservation Determination Decision shall be final. If the City's final determination is
that view preservation action is warranted on a particular property, the foliage owner
shall be responsible for trimming the foliage, at his/her expense, as so ordered by the
City. If the required work as specified herein is not completed, as verified by Staff,
within the stipulated time periods, then the City of Rancho Palos Verdes will utilize the
City's code enforcement process to authorize a bonded tree service to perform the work
at the subject property at the foliage owner's expense. In the event that the City is
required to perform the work, the foliage owner will be billed for all City expenses
incurred in enforcing the View Preservation permit. If the foliage owner does not pay
the invoice, a lien or assessment may be recorded against the foliage owner's property,
pursuant to Title 8, Chapter 24 of the Rancho Palos Verdes Municipal Code.
6. Once the initial work associated with a formal View Preservation
decision is performed, Staff will document the applicant's view with photographs taken
from the applicant's viewing area with a standard camera lens that will not alter the
actual image that is being documented from the viewing area. The photographs wilf be
kept on file with the City and copies shall be given to all involved parties to use for future
trimming purposes.
7. The filing of an application by a property owner requesting a view
preservation action without payment of a fee shall be limited to a maximum of once
every twelve (12) months. If a property owner wishes to file an apptication more
frequently than once every twelve (12) months, the property owner may do so upon
payment of a fee established by City Council Resolution.
8. Upon receipt of a written complaint from a View Preservation Permit
(VPP) applicant or the subsequent owner of an applicant's property, that foliage has
exceeded the height limit imposed by a View Preservation Permit, City Staff shall visit
the site and examine the photographic documentation on file or other evidence to
determine whether the foliage has been maintained in a manner that is consistent with
the approved View Preservation Permit (VPP). If foliage, which is the subject of an
approved VPP, exceeds the height limits prescribed in the approved VPP, the City shall
Page 26
O-42
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
order that the foliage owner bring the foliage into compliance within 30 days. If the
foliage owner does not comply within the specified time, the City will impose a fine
(established by Council Resolution) and the matter will be forwarded to the City
Attorney's office. Alternatively, if the foliage does not exceed the height limits
prescribed in the approved VPP, the City will impose a fine (established by Council
resolution) against the applicant. If City Staff determines that the foliage is in
compliance with the VPP, no further action will be taken in response to the complaint.
C. Review Criteria for View Preservation Applications in the Absence of a View
Restoration Permit
In order for a View Preservation Application to be approved, the Community
Development Director must make the following five findings:
1. The applicant has complied with the early neighbor consultation
process and has shown proof of cooperation on his/her part to resolve conflicts.
a. Each applicant must provide evidence of early neighbor
consultation with each foliage owner, utilizing the process described below.
b. Evidence of adequate early neighbor consultation shall consist of
each applicant filing a "Notice of Intent to File a View Preservation Application" with the
City prior to the submittal of a formal View Preservation Application. Said notice shall
be on a form provided by the City and shall be signed by the owner of the applicant's
property. Each applicant shall indicate, by marking the appropriate box on the "Notice of
Intent to File a View Preservation Permit Application" that the applicant has made an
attempt to contact the foliage owner prior to submittal and shaH submit written proof of
that attempt in the form of a copy of a registered letter and the return receipt.
(1 ). Upon receipt of a signed and complete Notice from an
applicant, the Community Development Director shall provide written notification to each
foliage owner listed in the Notice, via certified mail, of the pending application. The
City's notification letter shall also request that each foliage owner trim or remove the
offending foliage to the height and condition shown in the provided documented view
photograph within 30 days of receiving such notice.
(2). Once an applicant submits a "Notice of Intent to File a View
Preservation Permit Application", and the City provides notification to a foliage owner of
the pending application, the early neighbor consultation process shall be deemed to be
terminated and the applicant{s) may immediately file a formal View Preservation
Application with the City if the foliage owner fails to voluntarily perform the work within
30 days of receiving written notice from the City.
(3). If an appeal hearing is necessary, the applicant may be asked
to explain his/her specific efforts to comply with the ordinance requirement for
attempting to resolve conflict.
Page 27
O-43
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
2. Foliage exceeding sixteen (16) feet or the ridge line of the primary
structure, whichever is lower, significantly impairs a view from the applicant's
viewing area, whether such foliage is located totally on one property, or when
combined with foliage located on more than one property.
a. After the location of the "viewing area" on the applicant's property is
determined, the Director must find whether foliage, which exceeds the lower of sixteen
feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, significantly impairs a view from the
"viewing area".
b. To determine which of the two measurements referenced in the
paragraph above is the lowest, the sixteen (16) foot height measurement shaft be
measured from the base of the plant or tree (where it emerges from the ground}.
c. For structures with multiple roofline heights that would block the
view if the foliage were not present, foliage on the property shall be lowered to the
roofline of that portion of the structure that otherwise would block the view. Where a
structure with multiple roofline heights does not otherwise block a view, foliage on the
property shall be trimmed to the applicable height limit set forth in this paragraph 2.
d. Section 17.76.030 of the City's Development Code limits the height
of hedges. A "hedge" is defined by the Code as "shrubbery or trees planted and
maintained in such a manner as to create a physical barrier." A hedge can be included
in a View Preservation Permit application, if the top of the hedge exceeds sixteen feet in
height or the ridge line of the primary structure, whichever measurement is lower. In
such cases, the Director may require a hedge to be trimmed to the lesser of sixteen (16)
feet or the ridge line of the primary structure, if necessary to restore the view. However,
if the top of the hedge is below sixteen feet or the ridge line of the primary structure,
whichever measurement is lower, these cases shafl be referred to the City's Code
Enforcement Division for resolution. Foliage which is determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department to be a fire hazard also shall be referred to the City's Code
Enforcement Division for immediate resolution.
e. The Director shall only take action on foliage which significantly
impairs a view from the applicant's viewing area. Foliage which does not significantly
impair a view may remain in the applicant's view frame. The following criteria may be
used to help determine whether a view is being "significantly" impaired by foliage:
(1 ). Foliage Position Within the View Frame. Foliage that is
located in the center of a view frame is more likely to be found to create a significant
view impairment than foliage located on the outer edge of a view frame.
(2). Single-component View vs. Multi-component View. Some view
frames contain a combination of different view components, such as a view of the
ocean, harbor and City lights (multi-component view); while some view frames consist
Page 28
O-44
View Restoration and Preservation Permit Guidelines and Procedures
July 20, 2010
entirely of one component, such as only a view of the ocean (single-component view).
Foliage that entirely obscures one of the components of a "multi-component" view is
more likely to be found to create a significant view impairment than foliage that impairs
the same degree of view of a "single-component" view (see attached diagram).
(3). Prominent Landmarks. Greater weight should be given to
prominent landmarks or other significant features in the view frame such as the Vincent
Thomas Bridge, harbor, shoreline, distant mountain areas, city skylines, and Channel
Islands. As a result, foliage which impairs a view of any of these landmarks is more
likely to be found to create a significant view impairment.
3. "The foliage to be removed is located on property, any part of
which is less than one thousand (1,000) feet from the applicant's property line."
Staff from the Department of Community Development will determine the
distance from the applicant's property line to the nearest property line of the site
containing the foliage under consideration.
4. The foliage significantly impairing the view did not exist as view
impairing vegetation in November 1989 or thereafter.
5. Removal or trimming of the foliage will not cause an unreasonable
infringement of the privacy of the occupants of the property upon which the
foliage is located."
a. The burden of proving an "unreasonable infringement of indoor
and/or outdoor privacy" shall be on the foliage owner. The Director will make a
determination on a case-by-case basis.
b. Given the variety and number of options which are available to
preserve indoor privacy, greater weight generally will be given to protecting outdoor
privacy than to protecting indoor privacy.
Page 29
O-45
Exhibit "B":
City's Request For Proposals
Exhibit "B"
R6876-0001\1585814v3.doc
O-46
April 25, 2013
Consultant
SUBJECT:
Dear Consultant:
CITYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS -View Restoration Arborist
Consultant for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is requesting proposals from qualified consulting firms to
provide professional arboriculture services in connection with the administration of the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes' View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance (View Ordinance}. The
purpose of this letter is "to provide you with the information needed to submit a proposal for
review by the City and, if selected, enter into a contract with the City.
GENERAL BACKGROUND
GENERAL BACKGROUND -City of Rancho Palos Verdes
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes (the City) was incorporated in 1973 and consists of a total
area of about 13.6 square miles with 7.5 miles of coastfine. The Palos Verdes Peninsula,
including the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, consists of unique topography that varies from steep
canyon walls to low valleys with elevations that range from sea level to 1.480 feet The City is
bound on the north by the cities of Rolling Hills Estates, RoHing Hills and Palos Verdes Estates,
and to the east by San Pedro {City of Los Angeles). The population of the City, according to the
U.S. Census Bureau in 2011, is 41,946 and the character of the community is primarily
residential. Because of the City's location on a peninsula, many residents are afforded ocean
and city basin views. Since the City's incorporation in 1973, residents sought to protect their
views from needless encroachment by foliage. Thus, in November 1989, the voters of Rancho
Palos Verdes passed an ordinance (Proposition M) that created a City administered process to
restore and preserve their views.
GENERAL BACKGROUND -View Restoration Permit Program
The View Restoration Division of the Community Development Department is responsible for
administering the View Ordinance, which is considered to be one of the most stringent view
ordinances in the State, relating to vegetation. The View Ordinance is codified as Section
17.02.040 of the City's Development Code and the view application application process and
procedures are outlined in the City's adopted "View Restoration and Preservation Guidelines"
O-47
Request for Proposal
Rancho Palos Verdes -View Restoration Arborist Consulting Services
Page 2 of6
To address view impairments caused by foliage located on private property, residents submit a
pre-application for view restoration. The City will contract a mediator in an effort to resolve the
issue between the view applicant and the tree owner. lf an agreement cannot be reached as a
result of the pre-application, the resident seeking a view may choose to submit a formal
application for View Restoration. If a formal application is submitted, City staff will ofter.i seek
the opinion of a consulting arborist concerning a tree's age, trimming risks, etc. in order to
formulate trimming recommendations to the Planning Commission or City Council. The City
also has another permit process called View Preservation which was created to preserve views
that exi~ted in 1989 or later. The View Preservation Permit process is predicated on the City
protecting views that are documented by residents.
A description of these permits and the View Restoration process can be found at URL:
http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/vrestoration/index.cfm
The City's Development Code (Chapter 17) and Municipal Code can be accessed at URL:
http://palosverdes.com/rpv/cityclerk/munidatabase/jndex.cfm
SCOPE OF WORK
The City is seeking the assistance of a consuftant with expertise in conducting on-site field
assessments, and preparing professional arboriculture reports which will be utilized in
connection with the administration of the City's View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance.
The professional arboricu!ture services to be performed by the consultant shall include, but are
not limited to, the services more particularly described below:
1. Upon request, by City Staff, conducting field visits, telephone conferencing, and basic
tree analysis via email pursuant to the procedures set forth in the City's Local View
Restoration Guidelines and Procedures
2. Upon request, by City Staff, providing the City with brief, usually 1-2 page written reports
concerning, but not limited to, foliage health and safety, growth rates, trimming or
removal impacts, and other such topics relating to arboriculture services.
3. Upon request, by City Staff providing expert arboriculture testimony before the Planning
Commission and the City Council when considering the effect of foliage removal,
trimming, and/or replacement for View Restoration Application Permit requests.
Proposal and Qualifications
Format and Contents
Consultants interested in being considered for providing the above~described services should
submit a written proposal of the firm's or consultant's qualifications, and methodologies for
conducting on-site tree assessments and preparing arborist reports. The proposal should
O-48
Request for Proposal
Rancho Palos Verdes -View Restoration Arbor/st Consulting Services
Page 3 of6
demonstrate that the firm or consultant has the appropriate background, experience, technical
capabilities, staff, and certifications to adequately provide those types of services. To insure the
firm/consultant is capable of providing this level of service to prepare arborist reports in a timely
manner, the following minimum qualifications must be met:
• Firm/consultant must have/be a certified arborist and provide the certification
number
• Firm/consultant must be a member of the American Society of Consulting
Arborists (ASCA)
• Must carry adequate professional liability insurance consistent with details on
pages 4 and 5 of this RFP
• Firm/consultant must possess the ability and tools necessary to create arborist
reports
• All prepared arborist reports must be compatible with Microsoft Word and
PowerPoint for presentations prepared by City Staff
The proposal should include, at minimum, the following:
(lf any items listed below are not applicable, please indicate as such.)
1. Name, address and phone number of the interested firm/individual consultant and
contact person;
2. A statement of any possible conflict of interest the consultant may have in providing the
requested services on a specific request.
3. Detailed narrative statement including a description of the firm's proposed approach to
providing the range of above-described services the firm and previous experience
including sample arborist reports;
4. An organizational chart showing the names and resumes of the primary consulting
certified arborist and other key personnel who would provide the services to the City of
Rancho Palos Verdes, along with their background, experience and qualifications;
5. Hourly billing rate of the firm/individual consultant who would be providing the
requested services;
6. The mark-up for reimbursable expenses not identified elsewhere in the proposal.
Standard billing rates for other direct expenses normally involved in the preparation of
an arborist report, including, but not limited transportation, postage, communication,
reproduction, equipment, etc., including hourly breakdown for services provided, and
O-49
Request for Proposal
Rancho Palos Verdes -View Restoration Arborist Consulting Services
Page 4 of 6
scale of previous projects). The detailed cost estimate should be as specific as
possible, minimizing variable costs to the greatest degree possible ;
7. Preliminary estimates of the typical cost of providing the requested services.
·Specifically, please also provide an estimated cost for the sample case below.
Please see the photo below as an example of a typical View Restoration Assessment
A hypothetical case would be to assess whether 10 feet of trimming down the 20-foot
tall Coral tree shown below would likefy kill or injure the tree. A typical case would
.require a field visit to Rancho Palos Verdes, a field assessment of a specific tree and a
brief 1-2 page follow up report for Staffs review.
Please indicate all costs for this sample project including the details mentioned in Item
No. 6 above.
8. Statement of Qualifications.
9. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers for a minimum of three references
from other governmental or private entities where similar work has been performed.
Any additional information that the consultant wishes to submit may be attached in the form of
appendices.
Insurance Requirements
The City will require the firm/consultant selected to provide insurance, and proof thereof as
follows:
• Workman's Compensation, in accordance with State Laws
• Commercial General Liability in the amount of $1 million for each occurrence,
with $2 million in the general aggregate for bodily injury, death, loss or property
O-50
Request for Proposal
Rancho Palos Verdes -View Restoration Arborist Consulting Services
Page 5 of6
damage for products or completed operations and any and all other activities
undertaken by the consultant in the performance of this Agreement
Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in
the State of California and rated in A.M. Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of
A:Vll or better.
• Professional Liability in the amount of $1 million per claim and in the aggregate.
Said policy or policies shall be issued by an insurer admitted to do business in the
State of California and rated in Best's Insurance Guide with a rating of A:Vll or
better.
• A policy or policies of Automobile Liability Insurance, with minimum of one million
doHars ($1,000,000) per claim and occurrence and two million dollars
($2,000,000) in the aggregate for bodily injuries or death of one person and five
hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) for property damage arising from one
incident.
Selection Process
Deadline for Submission
Four copies of the proposal shall be submitted no later than 4:30pm on May 24, 2013 to the
Community Development Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 30940 Hawthorne
Boulevard, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275, Attn: Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner.
Following the receipt of proposals from interested consultants, Staff will review the proposals for
the purpose of selecting one consultant. If a need for additional information from any of the
submitted proposals is necessary, City Staff intends to Contact respondents by Wednesday,
May 29, 2013. If selected, the consultant will be required to submit an additional eight
copies of their proposal.
Selection Schedule
The request for Qualifications and Project Proposal draft schedule is as follows:
April25,2013
May 24, 2013
May 29, 2013
RFP issued
Response to RFP due to City
Staff will contact consultants if City has questions
O-51
Request for Proposal
Rancho Palos Verdes -View Restoration Arborist Consulting Services
Page 6 of6
June 5, 2013 Firm selected by Staff
June 18, 2013 Contract presented to the City Council for Approval
Selection criteria will include, but not be limited to the following:
1. Demonstrated background and experience in preparing arborist reports.
2. Completion of Submittal Requirements
3. References
4. Depth of resources to perform work
5. Cost
Discretion
The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to request and obtain, from one or
more of the consulting firms, supplementary information as may be necessary for City Staff to
analyze the proposal pursuant to the consultant selection criteria. The City may require
consultants to participate in additional rounds of more refined submittal before the ultimate
selection of a consultant team is made. These rounds could encompass revisions of the
submittal criteria in response to the nature and scope of the initial proposal.
The Consultant, by submitting a response to this Request for Proposal (RFP), waives all right to
protest or seek any legal remedies whatsoever regarding any aspect of this RFP. The City may
choose to interview one or more of the firms/companies responding to this RFP.
Contact Information
Firms may submit questions or comments to Ms. Seeraty regarding this RFP at any time, from
date of consultant's receipt of this RFP through the RFP response date. Questions regarding
the request for proposal should be submitted via email to Ms. Seeraty who may be reached at
amys@rpv.com. A response to your questions will be provided to you by Ms. Seeraty. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
cc: Gregory Pfost, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director
Amy Seeraty, Associate Planner
File
O-52
Exhibit "C":
Consultant's Proposal, including Schedule of Hourly Rates
Exhibit "C"
R6876-0001\1585814v3. doc
O-53
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
May 10, 2013
Ms. Amy Seeraty
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorn Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275-5391
ARBORICULTURE It HORTICULTURE
RECEIVED
MAY 13 2.013
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re: View Restoration Arborist Consultant for the City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Dear Ms. Seeraty:
Please find enclosed 4 copies of my proposal and 4 copies of my references. I have also enclosed samples
of smaller reports as I believe that is more in line with your intentions. If you like, I can e-mail copies of
larger reports and sonie more related to view issues.
I have had occasion to work with citizens in respect to your ordinance. On one such case I brought down
an attorney from the bay area who is also an arborist and had worked on drafting view ordinances up
there. He found it pretty "bullet-proor'. I have also worked with many Orange County HOAs who have
CC&Rs with view protection clauses and have helped train and safe otherwise good trees.
I don't believe there is anyone who could provide what you need to help implement this ordinance better,
and yet minimize the loss of trees. As you probably know, there is also the State Government Code
53067, which decries topping. Many tree services call topping "crown reduction" as a way to protect
themselves from suits based on this code. Real crown reduction that does not destroy the tree requires a
higher level of arboricultural understanding than many tree services have.
There is also the issue of independence. A tree service anxious to make money make take a job and write
a report to justify their topping. Tree services often offer consulting, but usually lack independence and
none I know of have a registered consulting arborist on staff.
I believe there are many trees planted in error. Their landscape architect, landscape contractor or on their
own selected a species that either did not respect the ordinance, or they didn't really know the
characteristics of that species. Many times the best solution is to just remove and replant with a good
species. Your area has hundreds of species that could be selected and many that would not need pruning
to control the height.
As you consider the various proposals please keep in mind not only my years of experience and
credentials, but also the range of experience I can apply to your needs. No young assistants or junior
arborists will work on your projects. On my web site you can find the range of other services I provide.
Thank you for your consideration.
R.sill~tt.4
Arbor! Consulting, Inc.
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda \Vlay, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-54
ARBORCiATE CONSULTING, INC.
AllllORICULTUIE & HORTICULTURE
Consulting Arborist Proposal for
View Restoration
Introduction
Business Background
This proposal is submitted by Arborgate Consulting, Inc., a California S Corporation, engaged
entirely in consulting. Mr. Greg Applegate is the CEO and sole consultant. He performs all
inspections and reporting. He maintains independence and objectivity by having no
complementary business activity that could benefit from his recommendations. Mr. Applegate
has been working in horticulture since 1963 and as a professional consultant since 1984.
Project Background
The City contacted Arborgate Consulting and requested this proposal. The City is requesting
consulting to help administer the View Ordinance. Due to the many residents who have view
homes, the View Ordinance is one of the most stringent view ordinances in California, and is
codified as Section 17.02.040. If a resident fills out an application for View Restoration because
the issue was not resolved through the mediator, City staff may seek the opinion of a consulting
arborist. The consulting arborist will provide information regarding the tree's age, trimming
risks, etc. in order to formulate recommendations to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Scope of Work
The City is seeking the assistance of a consultant with expertise in conducting on-site field
assessments, and preparing professional arboricultural reports to be utilized in the administration
of the City's View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. The professional arboricultural
services to be performed by the consultant shall include, but are not limited to, the services
described below:
1. Upon request, by City Staff, conducting field visits, telephone conferencing, and basic
tree analysis via email pursuant to the procedures set forth in the City's Local ·View
Restoration Guidelines and Procedures.
2. Upon request, by City Staff, providing the City with brief, usually 1-2 page written
reports concerning, but not limited to, foliage health and safety, growth rates, trimming or
removal impacts, and other such topics relating to arboricultural services.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-55
Page2
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
3. Upon request, by City Staff providing expert arboricultural testimony before the Planning
Commission and the City Council when considering the effect of foliage removal,
trimming, and/or replacement for View Restoration Application Permit requests.
Consulting Equipment
A large horticultural and arboricultural library and software I database collection
40-foot extending fiberglass height measurement pole
AirKnife for root crown examination
Biltmore stick
Calipers
Computers, laptops, tablet with Microsoft Office Word, PowerPoint and Excel
A busiriess level high speed cable modem
Diameter tapes
HP Color Laserjet 5550 dtn 1lxl7 printer
IML Resistographs F300 and MD300
Nikon AWlOO and 0600 (full frame) digital cameras
Nikon range finder I hypsometer
Outdoor green laser pointer
Shigometer
Soil test probe and bucket augur
Sounding hammers
Qualifications of Consulting Arborist
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Certified Arborist WE-0180a
Certified Tree Risk Assessor PNC-444
Greg Applegate has worked in the horticulture field, including landscape architecture, nursery
and arboriculture for over forty-five years. Compare the registration numbers and certification
numbers for comparable experience. Mr. Applegate is not just a certified arborist or member of
ASCA, besides the other qualifications Mr. Applegate had the third highest score in the quarter
that he took the arborist's certification exam and was one of the first to be certified in southern
California His certificate number is WE-0180a. He was also the third person to graduate from
the American Society of Consulting Arborists' (ASCA) Arboricultural Consulting Academy. He
was the first person in the nation to qualify for registration in ASCA under the new more
stringent Academy standards. The status of being a registered ASCA member requires passing a
number of exams and review of past reports. It is different than just being a member of ASCA.
He was the first certified tree risk assessor in California and for a while the only one. His degree
is in Landscape Architecture from Cal Poly, Pomona in 1973. Mr. Applegate is a member of
ASLA, the American Society of Landscape Architects; ISA, the International Society of
Arboriculture; STS, the Street Tree Seminar; IPS, the International Palm Society; JOA,
International Oak Society, ASCA, and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. Attached
please find a current resume. Below is a sample of relevant past projects:
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-56
Page3
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
Insurance
This consultant carries $2,000,000 general liability and E & 0, and $1,000,000 auto insurance No
claims have ever been made against any of the above policies.
Arborgate Consulting does not carry Workman's Compensation Insurance because I have no workers.
Conflict of Interest Statement
Arborgate Insurance has no projects or cases pending which could cause a conflict of interest.
Experience
Campus Arboricultural Consulting
Alverno High School tree protection
Arcadia High School -Full campus tree evaluation & hazard analysis
Broadacres Elementary School Hazard Evaluation after roots cut for Century Paving-
Cal Poly, Pomona-Tree preservation study for Oakridge Landscape, Inc.
CalState Fullerton, Phase III Housing tree survey for Fong Hart Schneider
Cal State Long Beach-Hazard evaluation for Dennis. J. Amoroso Construction
Cal State Long Beach Chancellor' Office -prepare Maintenance guidelines with LPA
Cal State Long Beach parking lot trees for EPT, Landscape Architecture -
Cal State Long Beach, Physical Plant Expansion, tree preservation for Golden Rain US
Cal State Northridge -tree preservation for SJ Amoroso Construction
California Institute of Technology (CalTech)-tree preservation at KISS Institute
California School for the Deaf Tree Appraisal for City of Riverside
Camino Grove Elementary School for Arcadia USO
Chaininade School Baseball Diamond Expansion for Rosenheim & Assoc
Chapman College -Tree evaluation for Amel Development Company
Compton School District -Hazard Evaluation for GKK Works
Corona del Mar High School -Tristania diagnosis
Crafton Hills College -full campus survey, hazard analysis, and tree preservation
Crean Lutheran High School -tree evaluation and pruning recommendations
Curtis School -Tree preservation for EEK
El Camino College-tree preservation and hazard analysis for Bovis Lend Lease
Fountain Valley High School-Hazard Evaluation for Angeles Contractor
Friends Christian Church High School, Yorba Linda-tree evaluation
Hamilton High School -tree preservation report for IBI Group -
Harvard Westlake School Preservation of Mexican Ash for Matt Construction
Huntington Beach High School -safety pruning specifications & training
Huntington Christian School Redwoods Adjoining New Modulars
Keppel Elementary School Tree Moving Analysis -Sheck Developers
L. Rincon Elementary Hazard Evaluation of Liquidambars for Dougherty & Dougherty
Long Beach Community College Golf Mall Tree Preservation Study-Gonzales-Goodale
Long Beach Schools Sycamore Hazard Evaluation for GKK Works
Long Beach West Cabrillo High School -McCarthy
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-57
Page4
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
Los Angeles City College -campus tree survey and hazard analysis
Los Angeles Southwest College Ficus Report for Ted Tanaka Architects
Los Angeles Trade Tech -tree preservation
Loyola High School -diagnosis and tree preservation
Loyola Marymount Campus -many projects: diagnostic, hazard analysis, and preservation
Marlborough School, many projects, tree preservation, street tree survey, diagnosis, etc
Marymount High School -diagnostics, tree preservation
Mt. Saint Mary's College-Doheny Campus-Tree preservation study
McKinley Elementary School San Gabriel Unified School District -Thomas Blurock Architects
Nellis Schoe>I Summary Findings-for JKB Construction Mgmt
Orange Unified School District -hazard analysis
Pierce Junior College -Parking lot tree preservation report for Sasaki Associates
Pomona Unified School District 4 schools report
PSI, Santa Monica -Tree Preservation Study
Redhill Lutheran Church and School -diagnostics
Rio Hondo College -Oak tree relocation study and full campus evaluation and hazard analysis
Riverside City College -Full campus tree evaluation & hazard analysis
Roosevelt Elementary School San Gabriel Unified School District -Thomas Blurock Architects
Saddleback College -Ficus trees root damage
Saddleback College -Ficus at James B. Utt Library, for Fong, Hart, Schneider
Saddleback School District -Trabuco Elementary School Oak hazard evaluation
San Marcos High School tree inventory and evaluation for Lusardi,
San Ysidro School District, Beyer School Cherry Transplant Suitability Evaluation
Sepulveda Middle School -Tree Preservation Report for Bojorquez & Lefner
South Region Elementary School #10-Tree evaluation forNuvis
Simons School, Pomona-Tree Preservation Report for Fong Hart Schneider
St Margaret's Episcopal School -Ganado Parking Lot Tree Preservation
Sutter Middle School Tree Preservation Report for Hill Partnership
Tarbut vTorah School, Irvine -tree inspection at nursery and site for Snyder Langston
The Claremont Colleges-expert witness consulting for Korda, Johnson, & Wall
The Country School tree preservation study through LRM
The Newcomb School LBUSD Oak trees preservation for The Planning Center -
Third Street Elementary School -Hazard evaluation for Icon Engineering
UCI -campus arborist, diagnostic, hazard analysis, preservation and specifications over 20 years
UCI Medical Center -Hazard evaluation and general arboricultural consulting
UCLA -several diagnostic projects through Glen Dake Landscape Architect
UCLA Eucalyptus Preservation Plan for Karlskint-Crumb Landscape
USC-campus arborist, full campus survey, hazard analysis, preservation & specifications over 11 years
USC Medical Center -general arboricultural consulting
Va1ley Elementary School #10-Tree Preservation Report for Hill Partnership
Villa Park Electuary School Tree Hazard Evaluation for Orange Unified School District
Washington Elementary School tree preservation report for IBI Group
Webb School, Claremont -various projects including diagnosis and tree risk assessment
West Cabrillo High School Tree Hazard Evaluation for Long Beach Unified School District
West Los Angeles College-Tree Management & Preservation Study
Westminster High School-Tree Protection for Day Construction Co
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-58
Page5
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
General Arboricultural Consulting
30th Street Architects -Maloof Tree Preservation and Relocation
AES Huntington Beach Power Generation Facility-species and maintenance recommendations
Amgen -Maintenance Manual and Tree Preservation Report for Mia Lehrer Associates
ARB -Irvine Regional Park tree preservation during sewer line excavation
Airport Center -Buildings #2 & 3 Tree & Palm Assessment Report for Jupiter Realty Corp.
Alzheimer's Residence-Yorba Linda, Tree Preservation Report for Yorba Linda LLC
AMCAL Multi Housing -94th & Broadway LA-protected tree report
Anaheim Marriot Hotel -Palm evaluation, diagnosis and replacement inspection
Aquarium of the Pacific, tree preservation
AT & T Mobility -eucalyptus study for Cal Trans
Bar Harbour at Capo by the Sea for California Pacific Homes
Barlow Hospital, tree preservation plan for Jack Bryant & Associates
Bay Laurel -Encinitas Torrey pine preservation monitoring for Greystone Homes
Bayside Palm Evaluation & Diagnosis for RPW Services Inc.
Belmont Village Senior Care Facility Tree Preservation Plan for Belmont Corporation
Bixby Ranch Co -tree preservation, and maintenance guidelines.
Boeing Fitness Center Tree Preservation Report for Boeing Corporation
Bolinger Estates Preservation Report for Brandywine Development
Boyle Engineering Corp.-Diagnose Parking Lot Tree Problem
Brittany -pruning, maintenance, & installation specifications for John Laing Homes -
Broad & Westminster -ficus removal & appraisal report for Morgan Development
Burton Associates -Oakcreek Golf Course Tree Preservation Plan
CalTrans -appraisal and expert witness consulting, various cases
CalTrans -diagnosis ofWashingtonias in San Clemente for Richard Fisher Associates
CalTrans -palm evaluation for E.L. Yeager Construction Co
Calafia pruning recommendations for Clark & Green
California Lakes tree preservation for Dangermond & Associates
California Lakes tree preservation for Metropolitan Water District
California Lakes tree selection for Immersive Design
Cantada Maintenance & Pruning Guidelines, etc for California Pacific Homes
Casa Paloma San Juan Capistrano tree preservation plan for Birtcher Senior Properties
Centex Homes, Inc. -Legacy at Bryant Ranch -Oak & Pomegranate Preservation Plan
Cerritos Regional Park Tree Evaluation and Preservation Report for Calvin R. Abe Associates
Chrystal Court, Palm l.D. and Appraisal for Four Seasons Nursery
Church of Our Savior -Tree Preservation Study
City of Azusa -construction monitoring oaks and palms
City of Garden Grove -appraisal of trees at 11277 Garden Grove Blvd
City of Highland -Various tree and landscape appraisal cases
City of Huntington Beach, Edison Park Tree Inventory
City of Huntington Beach, certification of landscape plans
City oflnglewood -Expert witness consulting and testimony
City of Irvine-Jamboree Road pine appraisal
City of Laguna Beach, City Hall Hazard Evaluation & pruning supervision
City of Laguna Beach, blue gum hazard evaluation
City of Laguna Niguel median trees study for Ann Christoph Associates
City of Laguna Woods, Moulton Parkway olive evaluation
City of Laguna Woods Hazard Analysis El Toro Road Ficus and Grevillea evaluation
City of Lancaster-Lancaster Blvd Street Trees for Fong Hart Schneider
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboricultute
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-59
Page6
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
City of Loma Linda -review status of trees in parks and LMD areas
City of Los Angeles -Yucca Park preservation of memorial pine, and expert witness consulting
City of Orange -various projects
City of Palm Springs -Whitewater Golf Course tree evaluation
City of Pasadena Water & Power-Tree Inventory and evaluation
City of Rancho Mirage -City Hall Tree Inventory and evaluation
City of San Juan Capistrano City Hall tree hazard evaluation
City of San Marcos Torrey pine appraisal
City of Torrance -Street tree root evaluation for Ranco Construction
City of Tustin -Pasadena St Tree preservation
City of Walnut Ashley Park Pepper Tree Hazard Evaluation
City of Yorba Linda-Main Street safety pruning recommendations
City of Yorba Linda, 6 parks -eucalyptus psyllid management report
City of Yorba Linda-Old Town. Pine Preservation Study
City of Yorba Linda-Yorba Linda Blvd. Pine Preservation Study
Claremont Senior Care Facility for Atkinson & Associates
Coto de Caza oak preservation for Clark & Green
County of Los Angeles-on call arboricultural consulting through Nuvis Landscape Architects
Cucamonga Corner Point Arborist Report for Lantex
Cypress Business & Professional Center Tree Preservation Report for Nick Adachi Architects
Del Obispo and Camino del Avion Tree Preservation for EPT, Landscape Architecture
Disney Hong Kong Project plant selection for WDI
Disney's Animal Kingdom-plant selection, procurement, specifications, etc
Disney's California Adventure -procurement, plant selection, replacement guidelines for WDI
Disneyland-Main Street, Oak Health Study
Disneyland-Hazard evaluation, diagnosis of tree problems, etc.
Disneyland Hotel-diagnosis of tree problems, etc
DisneySeas -Toyko plant selection for WDI
Dominguez Ranch Eucalyptus Preservation Report for City of Yorba Linda
Dominigoni Reservoir Tree Assesment for The Planning Center
Dreamworks -Evaluation of oak trees -Glendale
East Lake Village Shopping Center, parking Jot tree preservation for Sambucetti & Burns
Eisenhower Park, Orange -Tree Protection and Root Cutting Specifications for conduit trenching
El Segundo Community Center for LPA
Esplanade Shopping Center -Oxnard Phase 1 & 2 Tree Reports for M & H Development
Fairfield Ranch-Centex Homes Oak Suitability Study for Smithgall Johnson & Associates
Fairhaven Memorial Park & Mortuary-tree preservation, diagnostics and tree selection
Forsum, Sommers, Murphy-San Juan Capistrano Condominiums, tree preservation.
George Air Force Base Conversion, tree & palm selection for Douglas Newcomb Inc
Hewes Park Orange -Tree Preservation Plan for TNR
Higgens Ranch Project Tree Preservation Plan for Polygon Homes
-Hillcrest Park, Fullerton -Arboricultural Management & Preservation Plan for RHA
Hollyhills Drain Construction, BH -Tree Preservation Study Diversified Landscape & Maint
Hollywood Park Tree Evaluation for Mia Lehrer Associates
Home Depot Inglewood-Tree Preservation and monitoring
Homestead Village -Calabasas, Oak Tree Preservation Plan for Huitt-Zollars
Howard Johnson Anaheim Landscape Appraisal for Richard Price
Inland Empire Center, Fontana, tree preservation plan for Birtcher-Trachman
In-N-Out Burger Restaurants -Santa Maria & San Ramon Tree Preservation Plans
Irvine Spectrum, Eucalyptus Windrow Preservation Plan for RP A
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-60
Page 7
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
Jamboree Road widening, Pines Preservation Plan for Clark & Green
Jamboree Road Widening Appraisal of Trees at Risk for the City oflrvine
Jordan Avenue Oak Preservation Report for New Urban West
Kaiser Hospital Fontana -tree moving evaluation for Hamilton Construction
Kaiser Permanente Pasadena -Pruning recommendations
Kaufman & Broad -Tree Assesment/Buena Park
Koll Center tree evaluation & recommendations for IMA Design Group
Laguna Canyon Road preservation of eucalyptus study for The Irvine Company.
Lake Forest Corridor Center (Home Depot) Tree Preservation Report for Steadfast Properties
LaMirada Community Regional Park Root Report for EPT
LaPuente Parks Tree Study for Heirnberger & Hirsh, Landscape Architecture
Land Concern, Landscape Architecture-Tree Lists for projects in Colorado
Landscape Architect Exam, Plant Materials for State of California, Consumer Affairs
Legacy at Bryant Ranch, preservation and maintenance guidelines for Citation Homes
Los Angeles AF Base Palm Preservation & Replacement Program and tree risk assessment
Lynne Deane Barbaro & Associates-Frederick's Development, Oxnard tree preservation
Magnolia Memorial Park-Hazard evaluation of stone pines
Marriot Courtyard-Pasadena Damage Appraisal for Koll Construction
Mayberry Ranch -Diagnose tree problems and prepare Maintenance guidelines
Mesa Verde Shopping Center Tree Preservation Report for Tarlos Associates
MetroLink -San Bernardino, Palm Preservation Report for DMJM
Milestone Builders -San Dimas Oaks, Oak tree preservation
Miramar Nurseries -Electronic catalog with Garden Soft plant selection software
Montage Resort in Laguna Beach -Tree Risk Assessment
MTA Redline Station-Universal City tree preservation Tatsumi & Partners
MTA Expo Line -species selection and review of Expo recommendation
MTA Div.13 -Street Tree Study, Metro Bus Maintenance and Operations Facility 920 Vignes
MTA Irrigation Recommendations Regarding Court Ruling
MWD -California Lakes Tree Preservation and Resort Species Selection and tree preservation
Newport Coast review pines for The Irvine Company
Newport Center-Ficus preservation during remodel, for LPA
Newport Fashion Island -Diagnosis various tree problems and make recommendations
Newport Fashion Island pine preservation for The SW A Group, Landscape Architecture
Newport Fashion Island-Replacement tree study
Newport Harbor Lutheran Church, tree preservation plan for Taylor Woodrow
Normandy Place -Eucalyptus pruning and maintenance guidelines
Oakbrook Village-Hazard evaluation, diagnosis of tree problems, etc.
OCTA -review specifications, letters etc for Denne Design Group
One Carter -Tree Preservation reports, construction monitoring
Orange County Badminton Club palm evaluation & recommendations for CP Landscape
Pacific HilJs -Maintenance evaluation and prepare Maintenance guidelines
Pacific Point Tree Preservation Reports for Sun Cal Companies
Pacific Scene Development -Chino Hills, Oak tree preservation
Palm Desert Mall, Diagnose Parking Lot Trees for Carlasio Landscape-
Parker Hannifin site, Tree Preservation Study for LPA
Pasadena A venue Tree Preservation Study for BSI
Paseo Westpark Phoenix canariensis monitoring for Merit Property Management
Pepper Tree Lane Hazard Analysis of Schinus for Spectra Enterprises
Philbert Trust 122 acre estate Oak Woodland & Tree Protection for RPA
Pierwalk II Huntington Beach -Tree Preservation Plan & monitoring for TNR
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-61
Page8
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
P1aya Vista Tree Preservation, procurement, and monitoring for Playa Capital
Point Happy Ranch, Cathedral City, Tree & Palm Preservation Plan for The Sundstrom Co
Princeton Town Homes, Street Trees for Professional Community Management
Ravenea, pruning, maintenance, & installation spec editing for Forsum, Summers, & Murphy
Roland Heights Oak Preservation for Pacific Communities Development
Rosedale, Azusa -Oak and Palm Monitoring for City of Azusa since 2005
San Bernardino County Court House Pine Preservation for PBS & J
San Clemente Municipal Golf Course Tree Preservation Plan for Rainvil1e-Bye
San Dimas Oaks, Oak tree preservation for Milestone Builders
San Juan Capistrano Condominiums Tree Preservation Forsum Summers & Murphy, Inc.
San Juan Capistrano Pepper/Construction Mitigation for Gerald J. Chazan, Inc.
San Manuel Indian Casino Tree Preservation Report for Roger Leonard Architecture
Sand Canyon Flood Control project, Oak protection and monitoring -Mike Bubalo Construction
Santiago-Foothill Properties Oak review & monitoring for PBR
Sinaloa Shopping Center Tree Preservation & Tree Moving Reports for McDaniel Builders
Sisters of Social Service Oak Preservation Report for Calvin Abe Associates
South Coast Plaza & Repertory Theatre diagnostics for Bruce Wayne Company
St. John Fisher Catholic Church, Rancho Palos Verdes -Tree Evaluation & Preservation
Staubach Retail Services-AutoNation Tree Preservation Report for PBS & J
Stephen Dawson & Catherine Zyetz-Rancho Palos Verdes View Issues
Stetson Engineers -tree preservation at Patton Well Site, Pasadena
Summit at Warner Center Landscape Appraisal for Calvin R. Abe
Sunrise Assisted Living, Canoga Park-Tree Preservation Plan for Ivy Landscape Architecture
Sunrise Assisted Living, Carlsbad -Tree Preservation Plan for Sunrise Development
Sunrise Assisted Living, Huntington Beach Tree Preservation Plan for Ivy Landscape Architect
Sunrise Assisted Living, La Palma Tree Preservation Plan for Sunrise Development
Sunrise Assisted Living, Santa Monica -Tree Preservation Plan for Ivy Landscape Architecture
Sycamore Commons pruning supervision for 1MC
Target Store Cerritos Tree Preservation Plan for Perkowitz + Ruth
Target Store Costa Mesa Tree Preservation Plan for Perkowitz + Ruth
Target Store Pasadena Tree Preservation Plan for Perkowitz + Ruth
Tatsumi & Partners, Landscape Architecture-MTA, Universal City tree preservation
Tentative Tract 13330, Eucalyptus preservation study for Barrinson Development
Tentative Tract 15565 Tree Preservation Specifications for Muskoka Development
The Shops at Lake Avenue -Tree Preservation Study for Forest City Development
The SW A Group, Landscape Architecture -Newport Center pine preservation
Toyota of Buena Park, tree preservation for Matson Architects
Travilla, pruning, maintenance, & installation spec editing for Forsum, Summers, & Murphy
The Irvine Co -Old Myford Road Tree Preservation Plan
The Irvine Co -Trabuco Grove various diagnosis projects
The Irvine Co -Tustin Ranch Eucalyptus Inventory
The Irvine Co -Tustin Ranch Sectors 2-5, Eucalyptus preservation
The Irvine Co -Upper Castaways Tree Monitoring for Coastal Community Builders
The Irvine Co -Upper Castaways Tree Preservation Plan for Coastal Community Builders
University Park Pre-Construction Tree Monitoring for Bemus
University Research Park UCI, tree & plant selection and follow-up tree health evaluation
Valley View Yorba Linda Tree Preservation Report for Stonegate Development Co
Veterans Park tree evaluation & report Mia Lehrer Associates
Vida Lido Shopping Center -Hazard evaluation, maintenance guidelines for Fritz Duda
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-62
Page9
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
Vintage Reserve Oak Planting & Irrigation Recommendations for Brehm Homes
Vons 204 7 Simi Valley Tree Preservation Report for Perkowitz + Ruth
Walgreen's Drug Store Tree Preservation Report for Evergreen Devco
Weseloh Chevy I Honda -San Juan Capistrano, Tree Preservation Plan
West Covina Oak Preservation Plan for Prestige Homes
West Covina II & III Tree Preservation Report for Pacific Communities
West Covina Tree Preservation Report for Pacific Communities
White's Point Air Base Tree Preservation Plan for Lotus Development International
Yorba Linda Presbyterian Church Tree Preservation Report for TA Construction
Approach to Providing Services
Mr. Applegate believes in thorough examination of the trees and their environment. He was the
first in Orange County to make use of the Shigometer in analyzing tree health and decay. He
makes use of other diagnostic tools, such as the Resistograph, penetrometer, increment borer,
increment hammer, AirKnife and diameter tapes, for accurate information. He also uses starch
tests and other scientific methods to quantify results for more objective decision-making.
Whenever needed, samples are taken to the local lab for testing and culturing.
Besides the above experience, this consultant has served as an expert witness in over 50 cases.
Many were rooted in view issues that led to neighbors cutting each other's trees without
permission. I have testified in such cases from San Diego to Santa Barbara.
Having a background in landscape architecture, landscape contracting, and growing I take a long
range view of the landscape as a living plant community, rather than as individual plants serving
as ornaments to the built environment.
Reports are attractively presented, in simple to understand, logical terms. Any necessary jargon
is explained and defined.
Corporate Organization
Greg Applegate is 50% owner, the CEO and sole consultant. He provides all field work and
writes all reports.
Juliet Applegate is 50% owner, the Treasurer and edits all reports. Her degree is in economics
and she graduated from the Claremont Colleges in 1974.
There are no employees.
Disclaimer
Good, current information on tree assessment will be applied. However, even when every tree is
competently inspected, inspection involves sampling, therefore some areas of decay or weakness
may be missed. A complete tree haz.ard evaluation is not expected as part of this scope.
Weather, winds and the magnitude and direction of storms are not predictable and some failures
may still occur despite the best application of professional standards. Future tree maintenance
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-63
Page 10
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
will also affect the trees health and stability and is not under the supervision or scrutiny of this
consultant. Future maintenance activity such as trenching for sprinkler repair will also affect the
health and safety, but are unknown and unsupervised by this consultant. Trees are living,
dynamic organisms and their future status cannot be predicted with complete certainty by any
expert. This consultant does not assume liability for any tree failures involved with any property.
As with a person's annual physical exam, a health assessment of mature trees is a "snap shot" not
a guarantee. This consultant cannot verify with complete certainty the health and soundness of
the trees, but will make an expert evaluation, considering public safety paramount. Since the
health and status of each tree is ultimately determined by the physical changes that take place
around it during site improvements, and in response to pruning. Any requests for tree risk
assessment will be made under separate agreements.
This consultant will not be providing landscape architectural services or drawings.
Schedule
For Scope of Work Above:
The arboricultural view impairment evaluation and tree evaluation reports will be completed
within two weeks of receiving a written assignment from City Staff and all the relevant
background plans and information. The field vi.sit and complete tree evaluation reports will be
mailed or emailed within three weeks of a notice to proceed.
Fees
Meetings, field visits, tree inspections, telephone conferencing and discussions, report
writing, and other hourly consulting $180 per hour
Sample Project from Item 7 in RFP. Assignment: Assess whether 10 feet crown reduction of
the 20-foot tall Coral tree, Erythrina cajfra, shown in the RFP would likely kill or injure the tree.
A field visit to Rancho Palos Verdes, a field assessment of the specific tree and a brief 1-2 page
follow up report for Staffs review would typically be billed at 3 to 3.5 hours for the site visit and
1to1.25 hours for the report. No charge for mileage. Average charge= 4.5 hours @$180/hr.
Duplication, binding, laboratory work, necessary rental equipment and other approved expenses
will be billed at invoice plus a 10% handling charge.
Terms
All accounts are due in full within 30 days of original invoice date. A 12% finance charge sill be
added to all past due balances using a simple periodic rate of 1 % per month on the unpaid
balance.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Atboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-64
Page 11
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
Arborgate Consulting will be fully reimbursed for all reasonable time and costs to collect unpaid
invoices, including reasonable and necessary attorney fees, commencing 90 days after original
statement date.
Agreement
It is understood that payment of fees and expenses is not contingent upon the results of any legal
action, any finding to be reported, or the occurrence of a subsequent event
Please indicate your understanding and acceptance of the above by signing below.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Arborgate Consulting, Inc.
1131 Lucinda Way
Tustin, CA 92780
Approved by,
Mr. Joel Rojas, Community Development Director
Date --------
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Boulevard
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-65
Page 12
5-8-13
Consulting Arborist Proposal for View Restoration
Submitted to: Mr. Joel Rojas, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
Submitted by: Arborgate Consulting, Inc., Greg Applegate, 714-731-6240
American Society of Coasulting Aiborists -Registered Consulting Arborist #365
International Society of Aiboricu1ture -Cenified Arborist #WE-180
International Society of .Arboriculmre -Certified Tree Risk Assessor-PNC-444
Mr. Applegate is an independent consulting arborist., CEO of Arborgate Consulting.,
Inc. He has been in the horticulture industty since 1963, providing professional
arboricultural consultiag since 1984 within both private and public: sectors. His
expertise includes appraisal. 1ree preservation, diagnosis of tree and palm problems,
construction impact mitigation, enviromneotal assessment. forensic consulting and
testimony, hazard evaluation. pruning progmms. species selection and tree health
monitoring.
Mr. Applegate has comulted for iosunnce companies. major developm. theme padcs,
museums. homeowners. homeownets' associations. landscape architects, landscape
contractors, property managers. attomeys and governmental bodies.
Notable projects on which he has consulted are: Disneyland, Disneyland Hotel,
DisneySeas-Tokyo, Disney's Wild Animal Kingdom, the New Tomorrowland,
Disney's California Advc:ature. Disaey Hong Kong project. Knott's Ben:y Farm, J.
Paul Getty Museum. Tuatia Ranch, Newport Coast, Crystal Court, Newport Fashion
Island Palms. Bixby Rand1 Co1Jatly Club, Playa Vista, Laguna Canyon Road and
Myfotd Road for The IMne Company. MTA Expo Line, MWD-Califomia Lakes,
Paseo Westpark Palms. Loyola-Marymount campus. Cal Tech. Cal State Long Beach,
Pierce College. The Injae Concourse., UCI, USC. UCLA, LA City College, LA Trade
Tech, Rivetside City C~e. Ctafton Hills College, MTA projects, and the State of
Califomia review of the Lackcape An:hitcdm:e License exam (re: plant materials)
Bachelor of Science m Landscape Atchitecture.
Califomia State Polytechaic University; Pomona 1973
Aiboricultutal Consultiag Academy (by ,A.SCA)
Arbor-Day Fatm.1'ausas Ciiy 1995
Continuing Educa1ion Coutses m.Arboricuttmc
required to maintain Catified Atborist status and for ASCA me:mbcnbip
American Society of Coasulting Aiborists (ASCA), Registered Member
American Society ofl.andsc;ape Afl:hitectS (ASLA). Full Member
Intemational Society of .Atboriculture (ISA). Regular Member
ASCA 2011 Nominations Committee
California. Oak Foundation, Member
International Palm Socie1y (lPS). Member
California Tree Failure Report Program, UC Da\ris, Participant
Street Tree Seminar (STS). ldember
Community Aftillations Horticulture Advisory Committee, Saddleback College (1988-1995
ASCA web site. west com tree question responder (2007 and continuing)
SoCalif ASLA. vist'bility committee 1980-82
Landscape Arch. License Exam prep. Instructor. Cal Poly Pomona (1986-90)
American Institute of Landscape Architecis Boant of Directors (1980-82)
California. Landscape .Atcliitect Student Scholarship Fund-Chainnan (1985)
International Society of Arboriculture-Examiner-trec wotker certification (1990)
ASCA, Indumy definitions committee and A3G committee 2009-2010
Guest lecturer at UCLA, Cat Poly, Saddleback College, & Palomar Junior College
The Tree People (2000 and continuing)
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-66
REFERENCES for GREG APPLEGATE
5/7/2013
Lynne Tjomsland
Manager of Grounds and Gardens
J. Paul Getty Trust
1200 Getty Center Dr, Ste 100
Los Angeles CA 90049-1670
Richard Demerjian
Director of Campus Planning
University of California, Irvine
75Q University Tower
Irvine CA 92697-2325
Eric Johnson
University of Southern California
941 W. 35th Street
Los Angeles CA 90089-0631
Mike Cannell
Metropolitan Transit Authority
One Gateway Plaza
MS 99-17-2
Los Angeles CA 90012
Mia Lehrer
Mia Lehrer + Associates
3780 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 250
Los Angeles CA 90010
Mr. Cal Walsten
Walt Disney Imagineering
P.O.Box 25020
Glendale, CA 91221-5020
.AllBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboricultut:e & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-67
October 17, 2005
Mr. Paul Hryn
15 Bay Drive
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
GREG APPll:CATE
(o"iiULTINC. ARIOl!tt1
Re Pruning of Trees in the Landscape Easement
Dear Mr. Hryn:
Thank you for asking me to examine the trees in your landscape easement on the west
side of your home and make recommendations to restore your view. I examined the
subject trees and discussed your views and pruning objectives. There are three pines, one
mallet flower, a Victorian box, a star pine and one green stripe bamboo. Below I have
listed each tree and its pruning needs.
#1 -Japanese black pine .. Pinus thunbergiana -10" DBH
This pine is on the west side, in good health, and was previously kept to the height of the
lower edge of the roof. Since the disagreement with the neighbor and pruning was
stopped, it has grown 14 to 18 inch shoots.
Recommendation: Prune to maintain at the previous height (roof edge). Should not
require more than ten percent foliage removal. Prune the pines in winter.
#2 -Japanese black pine .. Pinus thunbergiana -6.3 and 8" DBH
This pine is planted two feet from the curb, by the cable box. It is in fair to poor health
and has old stubs left from poor pruning and one broken branch at the curb, probably
from a garbage or delivery truck.
Recommendation: Prune only to maintain at the present height.
#3 -Japanese black pine .. Pinus thunbergiana -9" DBH
This pine is 32 inches from the wall in back by the neighbor's patio. It is in poor health
and has almost no lower foliage. The top is sparse as well.
Recommendation: Perform drop-crotch pruning to next lower whorl of branches. It
should not require more than ten percent foliage removal.
GREG APPLEGATE, ASCA
RllGISTHIUID <.."ONSULTIGN ARBO RIST #365
1131 LUClNDA WAY, TUSTIN, CA 92780, PH. 714.731.6240, CELL: 714.292.7184, FAX 714.731.6138
O-68
5/10/2013 Pruning of Trees in the Landscape Easement Page2
#4 -Mallet flower -Tupidanthus calyptratus - 8 or 9 trunks 5 to 12" DBH
This tree is planted 11 feet from the wall at the base of the neighbor's stairs. The roots
appear to be very shallow. The neighbors consider this tree important for privacy to their
patio. It is also near the Hryn's side deck and air conditioner. This tree more than any
other is impacting your view.
Recommendation: It should be drop-crotched to no less than 13 to 15 feet high or about
the present height of the Victorian box (below). This will restore the view and allow
privacy for the neighbors' patio. Prune in late May or early June to have a quick
recovery and less sun-burn of exposed limbs.
#5 :-Victorian box -Pittosporum undulatum -6.2 and 7" DBH
This shrub/tree was hedged to about 8 or 9 feet high in the past. There is minor chlorosis
on the upper foliage and minor thrip damage.
Recommendation: Prune to 12 feet high or less, but not below the 8 or 9 feet previous
level Prune in late winter or early spring.
#6 -Star pine -Araucaria heterophylla -1.5, 2 and 2.5 inch caliper.
The tallest of the three trunks has been topped. If allowed to grow naturally, this species
can grow to 80 feet tall, but with three codominant trunks it would be likely to split. It
would also block many other peoples' views. The health is good. It is planted in the
middle of the landscape easement.
Recommendation: Remove this tree.
#7 -Green stripe bamboo -Bambusa vulgaris 'Vittata'
This bamboo is being hedged or topped to 8 feet or about root edge height. It is capable
of quickly growing to forty feet high when new shoots arise.
Recommendation: Continue to maintain at root edge height.
#8 -King palm -Archontophoenix cunninghamiana
This palm is located in the back or west side of the neighbor's yard. It is now below the
rooflevel, but will grow up into the Hryn's view.
Recommendation: This palm will not block much view and may enhance the view -
leave it alone. The fronds and leaf bases are self shedding.
GREG APPLEGATE, ASCA
Rl!GISTE!Uil) <..'ONSUJ;IlGN ARllOIUST #365
1131 LUCINDA WA\', '!'US'l'IN, CA 92780, PH. 714.731.6240, CELI.: 714.292.7184, FAX 714.731.6138
O-69
5/10/2013 Pruning of Trees in the Landscape Easement Page3
General Recommendations
Pruning of these trees should be within guidelines in established standards, such as the
ANSI A-300 standard, which is now widely accepted, even by the arborist organizations
that have produced their own standards, such as ISA and NAA.
Pruning in the proper season is as important as making proper pruning cuts. Besides
pruning each species in its proper season, it is also important not to prune off too much at
once. The Tupidanthus especially may require more than one pruning to reduce its height
to the necessary level without stunting it or causing excessive sprout growth. Not all the
pruning needs to be accomplished at once. Over-pruning will cause excess sprout
growth, which not only weakens the tree, but also means that they need to be pruned
again and sooner. The pines are in marginal health. It is the green foliage that supplies
the "tree food" required for production of new roots, conductive vessels and all other tree
parts. Over-pruning the pines could even cause their death.
Hire a tree service with a certified arborist to guide the pruning and incorporate these
recommendations. Any tree service considered for this work should be properly licensed
and insured. They should be prepared to list several recent projects for review of the
work product. I am willing to either supervise the pruning or to start the crew and make
sure they understand the above guidelines and the intent. Please give me at least a one
week notice though.
Conclusion
The above trees, with the exception of the palm, can be reduced in height reasonably.
However, it needs to be done with care, at the right titne of year, by a professional tree
service, under good supervision. These trees are presently fairly valuable and deserve
expert care.
Please call me if you have any questions or if you need more information.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Applegate, ASLA, ASCA
Certified Arborist WC-0180
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Photographs of the subject plants are attached.
GREG APPLEGATE, ASCA
R.EGISTERrtl) CONSULTIGN ARBORIST #365
1131 LUCINDA WAY, TUSTIN, CA 92780, l'H. 714. 731.6240, cm.I.: 714.292. 7184, FAX 714.731.6138
O-70
December 4, 2007
Mr. Carter Mudge
Attorney at Law
412 N. Coast Hwy., Suite B-223
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
ARBORICUL TURE & HORJIWlTURE
Re: Vi~w Blocked by Palm at Morton Residence
Dear Mr. Mudge:
Thank you for asking me to observe the Mediterranean fan palm, Chamaerops humilis, in
question and the view it ostensibly blocks. You asked that I write this letter detailing my
observations, findings and possible solutions.
For the purposes of my analysis and suggestions, I am using the term "view" as it was explained
to be, as seen from a seated position on the lowest chair in the home.
Observations
The subject palm has five trunks, the
tallest of which is about twelve feet tall.
The tallest overall height was about
fourteen feet. There are no smaller or
younger trunks. All five trunks are about
the same age. I estimate that the palm is
about 40 years old, but no younger than 30
years old. The heads are all full, normal
size and healthy color on each trunk. It is
in good health and will tolerate a normal
amount of pruning.
I was also present at the meeting in Suzie's
living room. I was able to sit on her sofa
and look out toward the ocean. In one
place I could see the tips of the highest
fronds, but no more. In another position I
could not see the palm at all.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-71
12/3/07 View Blocked by Palm at Morton Residence Page 2of3
Findings
This is the tallest Mediterranean fan palm I have seen. I have seen older ones, but they were
wider, not taller and the trunks leaned out more. This palm may grow slightly taller, but slowly,
and as it does, I believe the trunks are likely to lean out.
While the upper fronds could be cut off they would be replaced by new fronds in about the same
position. Removal of more than 25 percent of the foliage, especially at the top, will stress the
health of the palm and could lead to infection by pink rot, Gliocladium vermoeseni. This fungus
disease, if severe or untreated, could lead to the death of the infected stem. No new trunks are
growing up to replace any trunks that could be lost.
Aite:rnati.ve Solu.tio:n.s
Removal of less than six fronds from the top should not create a significantly greater risk of
disease. I do not recommend removal of more than 25 percent of the fronds. Any more than six
fronds should not be removed until after May, and then be kept less than 25 percent foliage
removal. Of course, nitrogen fertilizers should not be used as they will stimulate growth and
make any view blockage worse, sooner. I see the solution of this issue being one of the
following four alternatives.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Arboriculture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-72
12/3/07 View Blocked by Palm at Morton Residence Page 3of3
1) Do nothing, accepting the small amount of foliage that is within Suzie's view.
2) Trim the upper fronds as often as necessary to keep the foliage totally out of the view.
3) Remove the entire trunk with any foliage that blocks the view.
4) Remove and replace the entire palm.
As a consultant, I am not in a position to resolve this dispute. However, this is a very valuable
palm and a significant part of Mr. Morton's landscape. It is a tangible asset and easy to appraise.
A minimum value would be based on $220 per foot of trunk. Like a particular diamond of rare
quality or color, a premium is often added when there is an especially good proportion to the
various trunk heights and their arrangement. I have seen similar ones sold for around $10,000.
The value would be double considering the cost of installation. On the other hand, the appraisal
of the value of the view blocked by four or five fronds is much less tangible and likely to vary
from nothing to thousands of dollars, depending on the opinion of the appraiser.
Respectfully submitted,
Arborgate Consulting, Inc.
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Enclosure
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Horticulture & Atboriculture
1131 Lucinda \Vay, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-73
_,
March 2, 2012
Mr. Armando Jaime
Street Tree Superintendant
City.ofYorba Linda
P.O. Box 87014
4845 Casa Loma Ave.
Yorba Linda, CA 92686-8714
ARBORCATE CONSULTING, INC.
AllllORICUUUlll lo HORllCUUUME
Re: Four Blue Gum Eucalyptus along 4611and4671 Palm Avenue, Yorba Linda
Dear Mr. Jaime:
Thank you for asking me to do a visual hazard assessment of four blue gums, on the west side of
Palm A venue.
Observations
Each of the four blue gums, Eucalyptus globulus, was sounded using a rubber mallet to
determine if there was decay in their bases. None had conks or remains of conks from the
typical decay fungi, but the middle or second from the north at 4611 sounded decayed, like a
loose drum. The third one down from the north was questionable and would probably be
affected, short term or long, by the removal of the middle tree. So I also recommend its removal.
It was impossible to properly sound the one blue gum at 4671 due to the surrounding rocks and
the stump of a previously adjoining blue gum. However, due to the adjoining grading for the
driveway, adjoining road construction, and the death and decay of the adjoining tree to the north,
I recommend it be removed as well.
Address DBH Ht. Trunk Limb Foliage Root Comments Remove
condition condition condition condition ?
4671 36" 65' Topped, Db Sprouts Sparse top Grading on Dk in adjacent stump Yes
north
4611 36" 70' codominant HdDL full Sh, injured North end of row No
4611 30" 70' codominant Hd full Dk w/fill Middle Yes
4611 24" 60' codominant Hd full Dk w/fill South end ofrow Yes
DBH =diameter at breast height, Db= dieback, Hd =headed, Dk= decay, DL =dogleg, Sh= shallow
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-74
3/2/2012 Four Blue Gums at 4611 and 4671 Palm Avenue Page2
Discussion
The blue gum at 4671 is the last one remaining at this address. The adjoining tree remains as a
decayed stump and it has dieback in the upper part of the canopy. Dieback in the upper canopy
indicates root problems, e.g. decay, cutting, disease. The driveway is just to the north and at a
grade several feet below. This would have required roots to be cut when the driveway was built.
The adjoining dead stump probably resulted from that work. The roots were intertwined and
fused and provided some support for the remaining tree, but now as that stump continues to
decay that support is deteriorating. Since root of the remaining tree would have also been cut the
decay from the stump could easily infect the remaining tree.
The three trees at the north end of 4611 's frontage are also the last of a previous windrow. These
three and the one at 4671 had adjoining road work when Palm A venue was built. Others that
have toppled or been found to be decayed and preemptively removed along Palm were also
affected by this old work. Eucalyptus is very slow to decay and it is often decades later that
decay is sufficient to cause toppling. Beside cutting roots the construction of a road kills roots
by compaction and fill soil laid over the roots. The intertwining of roots can delay toppling
longer than would occur for individual trees with the same amount of root damage. In these
cases we are looking at the last few survivors and they have less of this kind of support.
All three of us standing around the second blue gum at 4611 heard the clear sound of decay in
the middle tree. The blue gum on the sound end was less clear, but both trees had a significant
amount of fill over the original grade. Sulfur conk affects mostly the roots and lower part of the
root crown. So the middle tree is very decayed t() sound as clear at the level I sounded. After the
middle tree is removed, the south tree will have lost the support of intertwined roots and have
some level of decay. So both should be removed.
While the blue gum on the north end has some visible root damage, there are no conks and it
sounded solid. The amount of visible root damage was not significant. There is no fill over the
roots. In fact they have been exposed by erosion. There were no soil cracks or indication of
instability. While I recognize the possibility of root damage from the adjoining road to the north,
Orientale, and Palm Avenue, I see no immediate need to remove this tree.
Due to recent toppling of blue gums in Orange County, many people have fear of this species.
There are no real statistics on the rate of failure for this or any other tree. There are just too
many to keep track of. One eucalyptus authority, the author of A Californian's Guide to the
Trees Among Us, Matt Ritter, says that this is the most common non-native tree in southern
California. As a result of this and the fact that most blue gums are old, and sometimes over-
mature, left-overs from agricultural days, with roads, underground utilities, landscaping, and
structures installed close to their bases, it is surprising that there aren't more failures.
I do not recommend wholesale removal of this species without professional examination and
demonstrable reasons for their removal. They make up a good part of the mature tree pallet in
Yorba Linda and add to the aesthetic appeal of neighborhoods where they grow.
Recommendations
Remove the blue gum at 4671 Palm Avenue.
Remove the two trees on the south end of the row at 4611.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-75
3/2/2012 Four Blue Gums at 4611 and 4671 Palm Avenue
Please call me if you have any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Arborgat Consulting, Inc.
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Certified Tree Risk Assessor PNC-444
Disclaimer
Page3
Good, current information on tree risk assessment has been applied. However, even when every
tree is inspected, inspection involves sampling, therefore some areas of decay or weakness may
be missed. A complete tree hazard evaluation was not requested or performed. Weather, winds
and the magnitude and direction of stonns are not predictable and some failures may still occur
despite the best application of high professional standards. Future tree maintenance will also
affect the trees health and stability and is not under the supervision or scrutiny of this consultant.
Continuing activities, such as trenching, will also affect the health and safety, but are unknown
and unsupervised by this consultant. Trees are living, dynamic organisms and their future status
cannot be predicted with complete certainty by any expert. This consultant does not assume
liability for any tree failures involved with this property .
.A.RBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Atboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-76
November 16, 2011
Mr. Mace Morse
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna ~each, CA 92651
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
AR80RICULTURE Ill HORTICULTURE
Re: Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon
Dear Councilmember Rollinger,
I met with Verna Rollinger and Ann Christoph to evaluate the six blue gums, Eucalyptus
globulus, along bluebird Canyon Drive and Morningside Drive. We photographed and evaluated
the trees on the afternoon of November 14, 2011. The City Council has considered a request to
remove these trees for issues related to the adjoining power lines. According to memos from the
City this issue started this issue started with Ms. Sue Kempf talking to an Edison representative.
Subsequently the Fire Chief indicated that removal of the trees would eliminate the possibility
for them to cause downed power lines and/or obstruct the primary egress route serving Upper
Bluebird Canyon. Additionally, he believed that removal of the trees would reduce fuel loading
in the canyon.
Observations
The six blue gums varied in size from 28 to 37 inches in trunk diameter. The first tree (#77)
does not adjoin the power lines and may have been dropped as part of this agenda. The next tree
(#79) also does not adjoin the power lines and poses more risk to the patio of the adjoining home
at 1479 Bluebird Canyon Drive. However, pruning could reduce this risk acceptably. The next
two trees (#80 and 81) do pose some risk to the adjoining wires due to possible limb or branch
failure, but again pruning could reduce this risk to an acceptable level. Around the comer on
Bluebird Canyon Drive the two trees pose little risk to the wires because they are downwind
from the wires and lean away from the wires. The primary risk they pose is to the house at 1515
or the yard of 1535. Photographs were taken and are available on request.
Discussion
According to statistics at the California Tree Failure Report Program, blue gum eucalypts fail
primarily in two ways to nearly equal degrees: either limb failure or root failure. Limb failure is
primarily related to longer horizontal limbs with heavy ends in calm or nearly calm winds. This
occurs mostly on overly mature or senescent trees. Root failure is primarily due to decay from
sulfur conk, Laetiporus sulfureus, which usually starts at large wounds or pruning cuts of limbs,
trunks or roots.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-77
11116/2011 Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon Page2
No signs of sulfur conk were found on any tree. Several trees had fill placed over their root
crowns and could not be tested for sulfur conk with any reliability. Only one tree at 1499 had a
wounded root flare, but it tested as being sound. The two trees at 1499 are adjoining a low
retaining wall that reportedly had large footings. Some level of root cutting had to occur, but it
was not documented.
The road itself would restrict root growth below it due to the typical and necessary compaction.
The impact of this compaction and paving can vary and is unknown. The first four trees have the
road downwind (relative to Santa Ana winds). Roots hold primarily under tension, and the
tension side of these four trees to my knowledge are unaffected by trenching, excavation or
roadwork. As a result, the primary risks are related to limb or branch failure, but only two of
those threaten the wires and those can be adequately mitigated by pruning. Tree #80 has a limb
damaged by a passing truck that is now decayed. That limb should be shortened using several
subordinating cuts rather than removed totally. Both that tree and #79 should have moderate
crown reduction pruning to minimize the risk of limbs failing. This work should be according to
ANSI A-300 standards and should be done in December-or January.
The two trees above at 1515 and 1535 have fill over the root crown. They lean strongly to the
south away from the wires and pose no risk to the street or wires. They are downwind from the
adjoining wires. Pruning should focus on reducing overly long horizontal or sagging limbs
according to ANSI A-300 standards. No more than 20% foliage should be removed.
After the recent blue gum related death in Newport Beach, people are rightly concerned about
this somewhat notorious species. However, an understanding of how and why they fail and
pruning accordingly can reduce the risk to about the level of any other species of tree. Summer
branch drop can happen to a long list of species when they are overly mature, senescent, and
have long heavy horizontal limbs. The tree that failed and many others I know that failed had
root cutting near their trunks. The one in Newport Beach was in an old windrow that was
preserved by building a median around them. Farming and building the curbs on both sides of
the median cut roots on two sides close to the trunks. Sulfur conk was visible on a nearby tree in
the same row. This is not the case here.
Hazard Analysis
Trees are living, slowly changing woody plants that respond to climate and environmental
forces. If the ground is wet enough and the winds strong enough, almost any tree can blow over.
There is no ideal maintenance plan that can totally eliminate the possibility of a tree blowing
over or dropping limbs. Otherwise healthy limbs are occasionally shed on mature blue gums.
Note the Failure Profile section to follow. This is also a common pattern in overly mature trees,
and on this street the risk of limb or branch drop is the primary risk where there is no known root
damage.
In hazard analysis of trees, per the International Society of Arboriculture format, there are three
areas of focus, each rated one to four. The degree of hazard (hazard rating) has been ranked
according to the scale described in A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in
Urban Areas, by Matheny and Clark.
Hazard analysis is a method of trying to objectively estimate the risk of falling limbs or whole
trees falling over. There are three components to hazard analysis: the "Failure potential"; the
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-78
11/16/2011 Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon Page3
"Size of defective part"; and the "Target rating". Each is given one to four points depending on
its degree.
The "target rating" is based on what is likely to be hit by the part most likely to fail and the
frequency of use, which is ranked I-occasional use; 2-intermittent use; 3-frequent use; and 4-
constant use. I rated the trees with homes or wires in the most likely fall zone a four out of a
possible four (i.e., very high) rating for the "Target rating". Where pedestrians, cars and
structures are frequently within the likely fall zone they have the next highest rating (3). When
pedestrians, cars and yards are intermittently within the likely fall zone they have the next
highest rating (2). In this case the targets cannot be moved. Some areas were rated lower due to
less traffic, such as the street or landscaping.
The "Size of defective part" considers the size of the part most likely to fail. "Size of defective
part" ranks the size of the part most likely to fail into four categories: 1-less than 6 inches; 2-6 to
18 inches; 3-18 to 30 inches; and 4-greater than 30 inches. Some limbs that might fail are
medium size ( 6-18"), but because of apparent sound trunks and roots, the most likely failure is
limbs or branches could fall.
The final category is "Failure potential". The failure potential also considers how often the trees
are evaluated. To my knowledge I am the only arborist to inspect these trees for hazard.
"Failure potential" is ranked; 1-low; 2-medium; 3-high; and 4-severe. I do not normally give a
four rating unless I see a past history of local same species failures, soil cracks or an imminent
sign of failure.
The "Hazard rating" is the total of"Defective part size" +"Target"+ "Failure potential". The
highest scores were 9's. Not even the 9's were recommended for removal, but pruning is
recommended. These are not especially high ratings for trees of this size, and with prompt steps
to mitigate the risk they should be acceptably safe.
Reducing the canopy too much will risk the health of the trees, but not reducing it enough may
risk limbs or branches hitting the wires. When pruning old or weak trees, like #80, that were
recently over-pruned, no more than ten percent of the foliage can be taken in the next pruning, or
it could go into an irreversible decline. Yet, removing only ten percent of the foliage may not
significantly reduce the failure risk. To keep #80 reasonably healthy, divide the pruning into two
cycles and prioritize the work. Heavy pruning also reduces the trees' ability to compartmentalize
the decay.
Keep in mind that the severe pruning and resulting epicormic shoots will grow into increasing
risk of small branch failure. Epicormic shoots grow quickly and are poorly attached. This risk
will not be significant for two or three years and was therefore not considered in the present
hazard ranking of these trees. The present score does not cover the future status of these trees.
Tree Part most Size of likelihood of Target Hazard
# Address Species DBH likely Target part failure score score
77 1473 Euc-glob 32 Branch Road 2 2 2 6
79 1479 Euc-glob 37 Branch Patio 2 3 3 8
80 1479 Euc-glob 31 Limb Wires 2 3 4 9
81 1499 Euc-glob 30 Branch Wires 2 3 4 9
1076 1499 Euc-glob 35 Branch House 2 2 4 8
1077 1515 Euc-glob 28 Branch Yard 2 2 2 6
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-79
11116/2011 Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon Page4
Eucalyptus Failure Profiles
The following charts are taken from a California Tree Failure Database presentation at their
annual meeting several years ago. More recent profiles are available on their web site. The
following charts were from a presentation focused on eucalypts. There is no data to suggest that
any eucalyptus fails more often percentage wise than other species. This would require a state-
wide inventory of all trees. Coast live oaks have more reported failures than blue gums, but the
point is they are very abundant and people want to build nearby.
camald = Eucalyptus camaldulensis
glob = Eucalyptus globulus
siderox = Eucalyptus sideroxylon
vim = Eucalyptus viminalis
River gum
Blue gum
Red lronbark
Manna gum
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arbo.riculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-80
11/16/2011 Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon Page5
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-81
11/16/2011
'10
60
iSll
% .Cll
3.41
241
UI
0
Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon
16+--------------~
14+---~~---------~
12~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
u~-----
ea:mald.
Page6
This chart shows that limbs and roots typically fail, much more so than trunks. Sulfur conk rots roots.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-82
11/16/2011 Hazard Evaluation of Blue Gums in Bluebird Canyon Page7
Recommendations
Part most Hazard
Tree# Address likely to fail Target score Recommendation
77 1473 Branch Road 6 Prune as desired
79 1479 Branch Patio 8 Drop crotch branch over patio
80 1479 Limb Wires 9 Crown reduction pruning
81 1499 Branch Wires 9 Crown reduction pruning
1076 1499 Branch House 8 Balance and drop crotch branch over home
1077 1515 Branch Yard 6 Balance and drop crotch branch over yard
The quality of pruning is critical to long term success. Use only properly licensed, equipped and
insured tree services supervised by at least a certified arborist.
Disclaimer
Good, current infonnation on tree hazard evaluation has been applied. However, even when
every tree is inspected, inspection involves sampling, therefore some areas of decay or weakness
may be missed. A complete tree hazard evaluation was not requested or perfonned. A copy of
the complete hazard evaluation form is attached. Weather, winds and the magnitude and
direction of storms are not predictable and some failures may still occur despite the best
application of high professional standards. Future tree pruning and maintenance will also affect
the trees health and stability and is not under the supervision or scrutiny of this consultant.
Construction activity such as trenching can also affect the health and safety, but are unknown
and unsupervised by this consultant. Trees are living, dynamic organisms and their future status
cannot be predicted with complete certainty by any expert. This consultant does not assume
liability for any tree failures involved with this street.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Arborgat Consulting, Inc.
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Certified Tree Risk Assessor PNC-444
Enclosures
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138 O-83
October 6, 2010
Mr. Carlos Marquez
City.of Garden Grove
P.O. Box 3070
13802 Newhope
Garden Grove, CA 92642
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
AlllOlllCUllUlll 1' HORTICUUURE
Re: Tree Appraisal for Road Widening Take at 11277 Garden Grove Boulevard
Dear Mr. Marquez:
Thank you for asking me to appraise the value of the trees in :front of the office building at
111277 Garden Grove Boulevard. You pointed out the limit of work and there was a stake
marking the end of that take. Any trees that could not safely be retained considering the planned
work are included here, which is all the Canary Island pines and one southern magnolia near the
west building entry. A row of shrubs at the east is also included.
Observations
The Canary Island pines, Pinus canariensis, are mostly in good health and condition, except for
the two at the west end. The southern magnolia, Magnolia grandiflora, is heavily over-pruned
and lion-tailed, with little root space for growth. Their condition is rated according to Council of
Tree and Landscape Appraiser's Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition in the appraisal below
The evaluation of the location takes into consideration relatively good site value and
maintenance, appropriate tree placement for the needs of the site, and good contribution of
benefits -namely shade for south facing windows and softening of hard architectural features.
Photographs below document the condition and appearance of the trees at the time of my
inspection. The trees are too large and the ground too uneven to be boxed, moved, stored and
replanted with a reasonable degree of success.
Summary of Findings
Based on my evaluation of the condition, location, and other factors, in my professional opinion
the value of the eight trees and 11 shrubs is estimated to be $115,691, typically rounded to
$115,700.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Hotticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-84
10/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Page2
Note upper canopies. Tree#5
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Axboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-85
10/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Page3
'I
~:.~:
.,
···.;-·.
Trees #6 and 7 are more sparse Note over-pruned and lion-tailed magnolia.
A.RBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Atboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-86
10/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Page4
...... _
~
9/30/2010
The first eleven Indian hawthorn, Raphiolepis indica, will be removed.
Definition of Value
Value is often defined as the present worth of future benefits. Since the courts have ruled in
several cases that the amount of damages is related to the highest and best use of the property, it
is considered within the "Location Factor" of this report.
Planted trees are usually considered fixed to the land and therefore part of the "real estate".
However, trees do have value separate from the land. In Kaposos et al. vs. Hammond et al.
(Ohio Bar Report 130BR 173 or 13 Ohio App. 3d 140.) The court ruled that:
If the replacement or restoration of cost of the trees is sought to be recovered, there must also
be evidence that the trees were ornamental, i.e., trees having a calculable value separate from
that of the land upon which they stood, rather than those indigenous to the area.
The subject trees and shrubs are not indigenous to this area, and are considered ornamental
species.
Standards
For the purposes of this assignment, standards set forth in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, gth
Edition are followed. Practices defined in the guide, as common practice in local terms, refer to
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-87
10/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Pages
southern California. The Species Classification and Group Assignment publication by the
Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture is considered for the group rating,
basic price, species factor and replacement cost of the subject tree species.
The Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers, a national organization made up of landscape
contractor, landscape architect, nursery, forestry, arborist and consulting arborist trade
organizations, has established various methods and terms of plant appraisal. They published the
Guide for Plant Appraisal and have revised it over the years. The current edition is the ninth
edition, which is used for the purposes of this assignment. Professional consultants and arborists
all rely on the guide for a uniform procedure to evaluate amenity type tree losses.
Whether the replacement cost method or trunk formula method is used, should be based on the
size of the trees being appraised. Typically trees of replaceable size are appraised by the
replacement cost method. In the introduction to the Western Chapter of the International Society
of Arboriculture's publication Species Factor and Group Assignment, 2004, the size of the
"largest commonly available" replacement tree is defined for all four groups as a 60" box. Trees
larger than 60" box are appraised using the Trunk Formula Method, as ''The Guide''
recommends.
Replacement Cost .Method
If a tree can be found commonly available for sale in the same size, the replacement method is a
fairly straightforward approach. The value is based on the cost of replacing it in the same
location with a tree of the same or comparable species, size, condition and location. Typically,
the wholesale cost is doubled to allow for installation.
The appraiser starts with the median cost from at least three local nurseries, adds the installation
cost and any delivery cost, adds the cost of a maintenance period for establishment, and finally
the cost of a guarantee and normal profit. Since plant size is used to find the plant and
installation costs, tree size does not need to be considered further.
The replacement cost method is defined as: Installed tree cost x Species rating x Condition rating
x Location rating. For example, if the installed cost of a typical tree is $1200 and the species
factor is 90%, and the condition is 80% and the location rating is 90%, appraised value would be
$1200 x .9 x .8 x.9 or $777.60.
According to the new guide published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture, a 60 -inch boxed tree is considered to be the largest commonly available size in
this region.
Trunk Formula Method
The "Trunk formula" method is for trees too large to replace, according to the 9111 edition of The
Guide for Plant Appraisal.
According to the Guide, "When appraising a tree that is too large to replace, the basic value is
obtained by adding the replacement cost of the largest available transplantable tree to the
increase in value of the appraised tree when compared to the size of the replacement tree. The
value of the difference in sizes is based on the basic price (cost per unit trunk area) of the
ARBORGA'rE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-88
10/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Page6
replacement. The basic value is then adjusted by the appraised tree's condition, the species of the
appraisal tree and average location rating to obtain the tree's appraised value."
The formula is: appraised value = basic value x species x condition x location.
Basic Value is: replacement cost+ (basic price x [TAa-TAr])
Basic price is the cost per unit of trunk area of the installed replacement tree.
TA is trunk area or square inches of exposed surface area as if the trunk was cut off at the
standard height for measurement.
Trunk formula method was used for all eight trees because they are all larger than 60" box size.
Compounded Replacement Cost Method
The "compounded replacement cost method'' is typically used for shrubs, hedges and vines that
have grown beyond replaceable size or to adjust for a longer than usual time for the replacement
trees to equal the size of the original trees. This method requires: (1) the replacement cost for the
largest plant of the same or comparable species normally available from suppliers for the region.
(2) the cost of installing the plant; (3) the number of years estimated for the plant to grow to the
same size; ( 4) the interest rate that would be expected to be earned for investing the replacement
cost for the number of years estimated in (3) above; (5) determining the cost of maintaining the
replacement plant in the landscape.
Compounded replacement cost method was used for all eleven shrubs. The method is described
in the Manual for Plant Appraisal, on pages 54-56
Determining Condition Rating
In "The Guide", judging tree condition requires the appraiser to evaluate five factors: roots,
trunk, scaffold limbs, smaller branches and foliage. Roots, trunk, and scaffold limbs are worth
up to eight points (or 25 percent) each and foliage and small branches are worth up to four points
(12.5 percent) each, for a total possible of thirty-two points (100 percent). Small branches and
foliage are evaluated primarily for health and density. I evaluate condition directly in percentage
for a broader and more accurate spread of points.
Trunk Limb Root Branch Foliaae Average
100% 90% 70% 90% 90% 88%
100% 85% 70% 85% 85% 85%
90% 85% 70% 85% 85% 83%
80% 85% 80% 90% 90% 84%
90% 85% 80% 85% 85% 85%
100% 70% 80% 70% 70% 80%
100% 90% 70% 80% 80% 85%
90% 70% 90% 60% 60% 78%
The shrubs at the east end were rated at 50% condition due to shading out of the lower half due
to lack of proper trimming.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-89
I0/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Page7
Determining Location Rating
The location factor is composed of three sub-factors: the site rating, contribution rating and
placement rating. The range for each is 10-I 00% and after determining each, they are all
averaged together.
SITE CONTRIB PLACEMNT
95% 98% 90%
95% 98% 90%
95% 98% 90%
95% 98% 90%
95% 98% 90%
9.5% 98% 90%
95% 98% 90%
95% 80% 70%
Species Factor
In the latest; or 9th edition, of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, a species factor is now used in both
the formula and replacement methods. The attempt is made to evaluate the suitability of the
plant for its overall environs. The Species Cl~sification and Group Assignment publication
(2004) of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture is used for
determining the group assignment, trunk diameter of replacement trees, species factor and basic
price per unit area. Both the magnolia and Canary Island pines are rated at 80 to I 00%.
Contingent and Limited Conditions
The middle of the range of the species factor is used in most cases and group assignment and
replacement size was used as listed in the new Species Classification and Group Assignment
publications of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.
The enclosed spreadsheet is produced by plugging data for these trees into the current formula.
Then it is calculated using the current Species Classification and Group Assignment figures for
the size of the replacement tree, species factor, and unit cost.
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Atboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-90
10/6/2010 Tree Appraisal for Road Widening 11277 Garden Grove Bl. Page8
Certification
I, Gregory W. Applegate, certify to the best of my knowledge and belief:
That the statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. That the report analysis, opinions,
and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my
personal unbiased professional analysis, opinions and conclusions.
That I have no present or prospective interest in the vegetation that is the subject of this report, and I have
no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value, or direction in
value, that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of stipulated
resul.t or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in
confonnity with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9t11 Edition, by the Council of Tree & Landscape
Appraisers and the standards of arboricultural practice. As of the date of this report, I have completed the
requirements of continuing education for Registered Consulting Arborist and Certified Arborist status.
That methods found in this appraisal are based on a request to determine the value of plants considering
reasonable factors of plant appraisal.
That my appraisal is based on the information known to me at this time. No internal dissection or decay
investigation was made.
That I have made a personal inspection of the plants that are the subject of this report. No one provided
significant professional assistance to the person signing this report.
Furthennore, the opinions above are held with reasonable degree of professional certainty, predicated on
my 40 years of experience in the nursery, landscape, and arboricultural industries and the documents and
information provided me.
I do no authorize out of context quoting :from or partial reprinting of this appraisal report. Neither all or
any part of this report shall be disseminated to the general public by the use of media for public
communication without the prior written consent of the undersigned.
As a result of my examination, investigation, and analysis of the plants and all the data pertinent thereto,
the value of the plants, as of 10..6-10 is estimated to be $115,700.
Arborgate Consulting, Inc.
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Enclosure
ARBORGATE CONSULTING, INC.
Arboriculture & Horticulture
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-91
August 14, 2008
Mr. George Herrera
City of Palm Springs
Engineering
425N. Civic
Palm Springs, CA 92263
GREG APPLEGATE
CoNSllLTIN« "MIOl!l'll
Re: Trees at Whitewater Golf Course
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Thank you for asking me to review the trees at the Whitewater Golf Course, 2500 Whitewater
Club Drive, and note of which should be removed and which can probably be restored to health.
Background
I met with George Herrera and Kimberly Bowman separately and discussed the background and
past care of the trees. Kimberly gave me a copy of the Abatement Warrant dated August 11,
2008. George gave me a copy ofan aerial map of the course and surrounding tract. I have not
received a map of the course showing the hole, tee, or fairway numbering. Only three signs were
found on site and the hole numbers below are mostly by estimation.
Observations
The primary species around the course were olives, Olea
europea; silk oak, Grevillea robusta; Aleppo pines, Pinus
halepensis; Mexican and California fan palms, Washingtonia
robusta and W. fllifera; date palm, Phoenix dactylifera;
Chilean mesquite, Prosopis chilensis; and carobs, Ceratonia
siliqua. The course is about 40 to 50 years old. It was
abandoned after the owner died in 2005. Irrigation was
resumed about a year ago and then stopped. The City has
taken over the responsibility of watering about three weeks
ago. They water each tree weekly.
Overall the course is in poor condition and is only receiving
irrigation by water truck and for the trees only.
Many valuable and mature trees are left, that justify the
expense of proper irrigation. The water truck sprays water on
the base of the trunk and in most cases it runs off.
Greg Applegate, ASCA
Registered consulting arborist #365
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-92
8/14/2008
A small number of
trees have had water
basins dug near the
trunks using a
backhoe or bucket
loader. This process
has damaged the
roots. I am not
aware of how much
water is put on each
tree. However,
when I took soil
cores I found the
soil to be dry in
most areas not
recently watered.
Trees at Whitewater Golf Course Page2
About six Aleppo pines recently blew over. T.he uplifted root plate was shallow, despite the
rocky and sandy soil. I estimate that 90 percent of the absorbing roots are in the top foot to foot
Greg Applegate, ASCA
Registered consulting ru:borist #365
1131 Lucinda \Vay, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-93
8/14/2008 Trees at Whitewater Golf Course Page3
and a half ofsoi1. The soil appears very sandy, but in most areas it crusts just below the surface
hindering water penetration. A large percentage of Aleppo pines had circling and occasionally
girdling roots. If the pines were dead or the majority of needles had faded or browned I marked
them for removal. Usually the last part of a pine tree to show decline is the foliage. By the time
the foliage shows stress, the roots and conductive vessels are even more declined. This is similar
to a cut Christmas tree, which still looks green for weeks after harvest.
The screening rows along the edge of the course and between fairways were mostly composed of
Athel tree, Tamarix aphylla, which were nearly all in good health, although a number were
structurally weak and some were falling apart. I did not mark any Athel trees, because even the
broken ones could be recovered by pruning off the broken parts and maintaining the shoots that
will follow. However, many of the other trees near the Athel trees were generally in much worse
healt.h than elsewhere, being out-competed by the more aggressive Athel trees.
There are two or more species of
eucalypts, Eucalyptus species, planted in
small numbers around the course. Silver
Mountain gum, Eucalyptus polyanthemos,
and another unidentified species of
Eucalyptus seemed to survive about
equally. In most cases the survivors had
seriously declined, but could be restored
through mulching and a series of good
soakings. Six to eight trees are worth
irrigating and restoring.
The date palms are in various conditions
between dead and just stressed. Many
appear to have been in weak condition for
ten years or possibly much more, possibly
since they were first planted. In some
cases their trunks have constricted and
remained constricted for that whole time,
except recently where they constricted
even more. I marked the date palms that
were dead or in this condition for removal.
In other cases where the trunk has regained
more normal diameter and left an hour-
glass of constriction from when it was
under stress, I did not mark such palms. I
believe their health can be restored and the decision to keep them should be based on your
willingness to assume the risk of their breaking. One palm in this condition has broken.
The Mexican fan palms were in the same range of conditions and were marked based on the
same assumptions. About half these palms should survive, if they are well irrigated. Many
appear to have been in poor condition since their original planting or before. The cortex is
falling off the trunks of many of the stressed Mexican fan palms, but this does not make them
much weaker since the strength is more from the internal bundles of phloem and xylem vessels.
Greg Applegate, ASCA
Registered consulting arborist #365
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-94
8/14/2008 Trees at Whitewater Golf Course Page4
The California fan palms are mostly very stressed. Nearly all the California fan palms are
concentrated in the northwest wing of the course. Almost half are too far declined. The trunks
on a few appear to have been declining continuously since planting. I marked dead palms and
those where the heads were less than half normal size and the :fronds were also very stunted in
size, especially if new :fronds were browning.
The half dozen or so Chilean mesquite were mostly dead. All the fine branches were dead. If
they did recover, they would be composed of nearly all shoot growth, which would require
crown restoration pruning annually for about four years to create a fairly sound new canopy.
Since most of these had even more fundamental structural weaknesses I marked most of them for
removal.
The olive trees looked worse than I believe they are. If the canopy was nearly all brown and a
bush of shoot growth surrounded the base, I marked them for removal. If there was scattered
green through the canopy and not much shoot growth, I felt they could pull through, unless bark
was falling off or there were other serious stress indicators, like bleeding.
The carob trees seemed to be in better health than the olives and mesquite. A few were dead and
a few had split or fallen over, but most had only thinned out. If only the foliage was sparse and
most of the structure was still alive, I did not mark them for removal. Carobs are very durable
and can probably be rehabilitated.
Greg Applegate, ASCA
Registered consulting arborist #365
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-95
8/14/2008 Trees at Whitewater Golf Course Pages
Analysis
The leaves of Athel trees are high in salinity and should be gathered and removed. Athel trees
should be kept about 100 feet from other trees, if they are retained at all. Although they are good
drought survivors, they are a poor choice for an operational golf course. They are especially
poor for screening under power lines, as was the case along the north west edge of the course.
This use creates an unusually high demand for frequent topping (an extra expense) and leads to
limb failure in the remaining portion of the tree. Due to the salinity of their litter and the
aggressive nature of their roots, they should only be retained along windy natural edges, if at all.
Athel trees are really a noxious weed that invades and diminishes natural plant communities.
I would expect the more drought tolerant species, like mesquite, olives, carobs and Aleppo pines
to have survived better. In my opinion their early life under turf cultivation, which resulted in
shallow roots and the low amount of organic matter and clay in the soil caused the poor survival
rate.
Some eucalyptus species are more drought tolerant than others, but when some are stressed,
borers can successfully attack them. Borers had finished off some of the stressed eucalypts, but
many of the severely stressed eucalypts had no sign of borers yet so they could be restored to
health with good irrigation.
Aleppo pines are named for Aleppo, Syria. They are a desert pine and have naturally good
structure in dry sterile conditions. These Aleppo pines have poor structure as a result of the
irrigation and fertilization of the former turf. They have codominant and overly long scaffold
limbs and will need corrective pruning once they are restored to health.
On the other hand, palms are from
moist or wet areas. These palm
species are from wet areas of dry
climates -oasis or riparian
microclimates. They are good in turf
based landscapes, but suffer when
irrigation stops. Once the trunk
constricts, that part cannot be restored
to normal diameter. If the head grows
back to full size, the trunk in that area
will be full size, but the constriction
caused by the period of drought will
remain. A permanent "hour-glass"
will be formed in the trunk. If more
than one third the cross sectional area
is lost, there is enough strength lost that the chance of failure increases significantly. The taller
the palm grows above the hour-glass the more the chance of breaking increases. Local
prevailing winds, the nature of the likely fall zones and the frequency that these areas are
occupied needs to be considered in analyzing the risk.
The present water truck irrigation is not likely to be sufficient for the trees' needs. Many people
have a mental picture of the roots reflecting the branching, being about the same width and
maybe the same depth. This is a misconception. Actually, the trees' roots are spread in a thin
mat up to a hundred feet from the trunks. Forming water basins around the very base of the trees
Greg Applegate, ASCA
Registered consulting arborist #365
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-96
8/14/2008 Trees at Whitewater Golf Course Page6
is not likely to be helpful, especially if roots are cut in the process. I doubt that even daily water
truck irrigation would be very useful. I see no practical way of such a method working to save
these trees. A temporary irrigation system or repair of the original irrigation system is needed.
Battery operated valves with surface mounted pipes or a reworking of the original system to
focus on the trees is needed. If any live water lines are still functioning, at least a temporary
system could be set up. Drip lines using mini-spray heads or impact heads or rotors off surface
mounted pipes could be used, but a larger area needs to be covered. The whole root zone needs
to be slow soaked and checked for water penetration to at least two feet deep.
Recommendations
Remove and grind or chip on site all the trees marked with yellow paint. Allow local gardeners
and tree services to freely dump green waste in a specific location at the course. Rent a chipper
or tub grinder and create compost piles or windrows. Keep the piles moist. Tum the piles at least
every other day for a month and then apply a three inch deep layer of mulch around each tree not
designated to be removed. Build a surplus of compost before cutting off the green waste supply.
The mulch will break down and need to be replenished in about six months.
Before placing the mulch, lightly break the crust at the surface of the so ii working in a radial
direction to the trunk. Use a roto-tiller or do it by hand. Do not use a backhoe or bucket loader.
Do not work deeper than two inches ftom the surface and stop if dense roots are encountered.
Design a temporary system or rework the existing system to irrigate within at least fifty feet of
the trees and 20 feet of the palm. Depending on the volume of water available, set up an
irrigation schedule and monitor the soil moisture with a soil test probe to adjust the schedule as
needed to keep the trees moist. Remember how shallow the roots are.
Develop a long term program of corrective pruning (crown restoration pruning) to correct and
restore sound branching.
After the trees have resumed normal growth apply fertilizer as dictated by a agronomic lab test
recommendations. Begin a pruning program in the proper seasons, first to remove dead wood
and then to correct structural weakness. Do not remove more than twenty percent of the foliage
and then only after a normal density and color has been restored. Prioritize the work to do the
most important work first, before the 20 percent has been reached. Use a tree service with
appropriate license and insurance that has a certified arborist to direct the work on site.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~~
Greg Applegate, ASCA, ASLA
Registered Consulting Arborist #365
Enclosures,
cc: Sharon Heider
Greg Applegate, ASCA
Registered consulting arborist #365
1131 Lucinda Way, Tustin, CA 92780, Ph. 714.731.6240, Cell: 714.292.7184, Fax 714.731.6138
O-97