HomeMy WebLinkAboutEllis Residence (PA2003-265) 308 Evening Canyon RoadCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 3
January 20, 2005
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644 - 3208, rung @city.newport- beach.ca.us
SUBJECT: Appeal of Modification Permit No. 2004 -084
Ellis Residence, 308 Evening Canyon Road
(PA2004 -265)
APPLICANT: Mark Ellis
BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2004, the Modifications Committee voted to approve Modification
Permit No. 2004 -084 for the following setback encroachments in conjunction with the
construction of a new single - family residence.
1. Structural footings that encroach 12 inches into the required 6 -foot side yard
setback.
2. A below -grade stairway that encroaches 2 feet into 6 -foot side yard setback
instead of 4 feet as requested by the applicant.
3. 3 -foot high protective guardrails on top of retaining walls that are greater than 3
feet in height and located within the 25 -foot front yard setback where the Zoning
Code limits the height to a maximum of 3 feet above existing grade.
The applicant subsequently filed an appeal to the Planning Commission regarding Item
No. 2. The appeal application is attached as Exhibit No. 2.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider their appeal and
approve their original proposal to allow the below -grade stairway and guardrails to
encroach 4 feet into the 6 -foot side yard setback. The proposed stairway is designed to
allow the applicant to have exterior access to the residence from side yard.
m
Ellis Residence
January 20, 2005
Page 3
The stairway, including the protective guardrails, is a part of the basement structure,
and therefore could not be treated as an accessory structure and could not be
considered as a permitted encroachment under Section 20.60.030.A.1 of the Municipal
Code. This section allows fences, walls, hedges, uncovered decks, landings, patios,
platforms, porches and terraces and similar structures not more than 6 feet in height, to
be located within any required side or rear yard setbacks when not abutting an alley.
The Modifications Committee reduced the requested encroachment from 4 feet to 2 feet
to provide better access to the rear yard area for emergency personnel. The Committee
modified the applicant's request based upon the findings contained in the attached
approved letter (see Exhibit No. 1).
In addition to the Committee's findings, the Planning Department further finds that the
requested encroachment is not required per the Fire or Building Departments. The other
alternative is to relocate the stairway to a different location within the rear yard area.
Adequate space exists within the rear yard area of the site to accommodate the
basement - access stairway design that does not necessitate the encroachment within
the required side setback. Therefore, finding that the request is necessary to avoid a
physical hardship is not possible since the chosen design is reason for the request
rather than a practical difficulty associated with the property.
The Modifications Committee received two letters in opposition from Ed and Paulette
Johnson, and Diane and Jules Swimmer stating their concerns of the proposed new
home by citing incompatibility and potential health and safety issues to the existing
neighborhood. Staff also received phone calls from Colonel James A. Cane stating his
objections to the new residence (see Exhibit No. 1). Their concerns, however, are not
directly related to the appeal application.
Environmental Review:
The project qualifies for Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Class 11
(Accessory Structures) exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act which
exempts the reconstruction of a single family residence from CEQA review.
Public Notice:
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this
hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the
agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website.
Ellis Residence
January 20, 2005
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold and affirm
the decision of the Modifications Committee and approve Modification Permit No. 2004
084.
The Planning Commission has the following additional options:
1. Uphold the appeal and approve Modification Permit No. 2004 -084 as requested
by the applicant.
2. Modify any aspect of the approved Modification Permit.
Prepared by:
Ro I alinh M. Ungboiksociate, Planner
Exhibits:
Submitted by:
Patricia L. Temple, Planning Director
1. Modification Permit Letter Dated December 8, 2004
2 Appeal Application
3. Plans
December 8, 2004
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2004 -084
(PA2004 -265)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92683
(949) 644.3200 FAX (949) 644 -8229
Mark Ellis
39 Rhode Is
Irvine, CA 92606 -1755
Application No:
Applicant:
Address of
Property Involved:
Legal Description:
Requestas
Staff Planner. Javier S. Garda, 644 -3206
Appeal Period: 14 days after decision data
Modification Permit No. MD2004 -084
(PA2004 -265)
Mark Ellis
308 Evening Canyon Road
Lot 65, Tract 1116
The Modifications Committee approved the applicant's request to allow the construction
of a new single - family dwelling with the following encroachments: a) structural footings
that will encroach 12 inches into the required 6 -foot side yard setback, b) a basement -
access stairway that will encroach 2 feet (rather than the requested 4 feet) into the
required 6 -foot side yard setback, and c) a 3- foot -high protective guardrail on top of
retaining walls that are greater than 3 feet in height and located within the 25 -foot front
yard setback where the Zoning Code limits the height to a maximum of 3 feet above
existing qrade. The property is located in the R -1 -B District.
On December 8. 2004, the Modifications Committee voted 3 ayes and 0 noes to approve
the application request, as modified, based on the following findings and subject to the
following conditions.
FINDINGS:
In this case, the Modifications Committee determined that the proposal would not be
detrimental to persons, property or improvements in the neighborhood. In addition, the
modification, as approved, would be consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code based on the following findings:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan designate the site for "Single - Family Detached" residential use. The
proposed new residential structure is consistent with this designation.
U
December 8, 2004
Page - 2
2. This project has been reviewed, and it has been 'determined that it is
categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) and Class 11
(Accessory Structures).
3. The proposed modification to the Zoning Code would be consistent with the
legislative intent of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. It is a logical
use of the property that would be precluded by strict application of the zoning
requirements for this District for the following reasons:
• The structural footings of the new dwelling that will encroach 12 inches
into the 6 -foot side yard setback will be below grade.
The basement -access stairway will be limited to a 2 -foot maximum
encroachment into the 6 -foot side yard setback, which is a minor
encroachment into the side yard setback that will still allow a minimum
passage way within the side yard.
• The retaining walls to be located within the 25 -foot front yard setback are
being constructed to provide a drive approach to a subterranean garage.
The 3 -foot -high protective guardrails on top of the retaining walls are
required for safety purposes.
4. The proposed modification to the Zoning Code will not be detrimental to persons,
property or improvements in the neighborhood or increase any detrimental effect
of the existing use for the following reasons:
• The structural footings that will encroach 12 inches into the 6 -foot required
side yard setback will be below grade and not visible, and will not impact
the side yard setback area.
• The basement - access stairway .will be limited to a 2-foot maximum
encroachment into the 6 -foot side yard setback and will be located below
grade, with the exception of the protective guardrails.
• The retaining walls located within the 25 -foot front yard setback will be
located below existing natural grade in most areas, and the 3- foot -high
protective guardrails on top will be of open construction, thereby
minimizing any negative or detrimental impacts on property or
improvements in the neighborhood.
• The retaining walls and protective guardrails at the driveway approach in
the front yard setback will be designed in a manner so as not to interfere
with sight distance from any street, alley or driveway.
5. The proposed side and front yard encroachments will not affect the flow of air or
light to adjoining residential properties because:
• The side yard encroachments are below grade and the front yard
encroachment is located at the street side of the subject property away
from adjacent residences.
December 8, 2004
Page - 3
6. The proposed side and front yard encroachments will not obstruct public views
from adjacent public roadways or parks because:
There are no public views through or across the subject property that are
affected by the proposed project.
CONDITIONS:
Except as noted in the following conditions, the development shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved plot plan, floor plans and elevations.
2. Anything not specifically approved by this Modification Permit is prohibited and
must be addressed in a separate and subsequent Modification Permit review.
3. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in
and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide
constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions.
4. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code or other applicable section or chapter, additional street trees shall be
provided and existing street trees shall be protected in place during construction
of the subject project, unless otherwise approved by the General Services
Department and the Public Works Department through an encroachment permit
or agreement if required.
5. All work performed within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department under an encroachment permittagreement if
required.
6. The structural footings may encroach a maximum of 12 inches into the 6 -foot
side yard setback and shall maintain 5 feet clear to the side property line.
7. The basement - access stairway may encroach up to a maximum of 2 feet into the
6 -foot side yard setback and shall maintain a minimum 4 feet clear to the side
property line.
8. Prior to building permit issuance, the final location and design of the driveway
access to the subterranean garage and any landscaping to be installed in the
area of the driveway approach shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that
adequate sight distance is provided.
9. Prior to building permit issuance, the final design of the driveway approach and
the subterranean garage shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic
Engineer for ingress and egress to the subject property.
10. The protective guardrails on top of the retaining walls located in the 25 -foot front
yard setback shall be of open construction, and the final design and location
shall require review and approval by the Building and Public Works Departments.
S
December 8, 2004
Page - 4
11. Landscape plans shall be made a part of the final set of plans and shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments.
12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a copy of the revised architectural plans
which accurately depict that which is approved by this Modification Permit and
are approved for the issuance building permits shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for inclusion in the Modification Permit MD2004 -084 file.
13. A building permit shall be obtained prior to commencement of the construction.
14. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.93.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,
unless an extension is approved prior to the expiration date of this approval, in
accordance with Section 20.93.055 (B) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
The decision of the Committee may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 14
days subsequent to the decision date. A $975 filing fee shall accompany any appeal filed.
No building permits may be issued until the appeal period has expired. A copy of the
approval letter shall be incorporated into the Building Department set of plans prior to
issuance of the building permits or issuance of revised plans.
MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
By C' c o-
S nior Planner Javier S. Garcia, AICP
\,-Modifications Committee Chairperson
JSG.j b
Attachments: Vicinity Map
Letters in O000skion:
1. M/M Swimmer, 202 Seward Rd.
2. M/M Johnson, 314 Evening Canyon
Copy of Arborist Report avail. in Planning Dept.
Appeared in
Opposition: Ed & Paulette Johnson, 314 Evening Canyon
Curt Billings, 5830 Zapata PI., Alta Loma
Diane Swimmer, 202 Seward Rd.
Appeared in
Support: Philip Nielsen, 555 Anton Blvd.
F:UISER8IPLN\Shared\PNs1PAs - 20041PA2004- 2651MD2004 -084 Appr.doc
c:
David Hohmann Architects
555 Anton Blvd., Suite 850
Coast Mesa, CA 92626
0
Bea 07 04 07:13p
December 7, 2004
r +mmunitt$ Housing Bev Grp
Newport Beach Modification Committee
Re: Permit No. MD 2004 -265 - Mark Ellis
308 Evening Canyon Road
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Dear Committee Members:
94P- 721 -9451 p.1
rt0 : JYII I qm iV.eZ-
r�X �� ►R %bqy -3aag
My husband and I are writing this letter to make you aware of our concerns as long time
homeowners in this unique neighborhood of Shorecliff.
Most of the new homes have blended into the neighborhood as 2 story homes in a mixed
one and two story neighborhood; we are very concerned about the massive undertaking
of this home in the neighborhood. We can understand the desire of our new neighbors to
maximize the square footage of their new home but not at the expense and detriment of
their neighbors. The existing zoning ordinance has the purpose of safeguarding the
property values of homeowners and neighbors. They do so by limiting the amount of
development that is physically capable on any given lot and create consistency in the size
of homes that can be built. By making modification to the Zoning ordinances we are
making it acceptable for other homeowners to increase the size of homes and thereby
changing the whole appeal of this neighborhood not to mention the ambiance that exists.
This modification request is solely for the purpose of increasing the square footage of the
new home. The intrusion into the side yard setback by 4 feet of a 6 foot setback
requirement is to allow access into a third level basement area which is not what is
traditionally part of Shorecliffs. We can understand a request for modification for
Architectural reasons to enhance the esthetics or in an odd shape lot to allow a more
efficient use of the lot but this is not the case. To ask for modification to a zoning
regulation to allow for additional massiveness to an already massive house (by Shorecliff
standards) is totally egregious to the current neighbors.
We have also been advised by a local arborist that all the neighbors 30 year old landscape
buffers will succumb due to the perimeter walls designed in this construction Although
the committee may not have the responsibility of ensuring that neighbors' landscape be
protected the point remains that this massive construction will create an even greater
impact on the neighbors by killing all these mature trees that have been part of
Shorecliffs for many years.
1�
Dec 07 04 07a13p Cgmmunity Hausing Dev Grp 949 7721 -9451 p.2
I urge you to deny any modification that the current applicant has requested and suggest
to the applicant to work with the neighbors in order to come to some agreeable
arrangement that achieves the applicant's desire for a 3 level home in a 1 and 2 story
neighborhood for the most part. We are desirous to work with the applicant to help him
achieve his dream home but we need to protect our rights within the spirit of Shorcliff
and the zoning regulations of the City of Newport Beach.
mcerely,
Diane & Jule immer
202 Seaw Road
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
949 - 640 -2113
949 -721 -9457 FAX
jswimmer @adelphia_net
1�'
DATE: December 1, 2004
ANNiNGEDEPAD BY
RTMENT
a ry OF NEWPORT BEACH
DEC 0 2 2004
7�8,9110,11 X12 1l 1213141516
TO: Patricia Temple, Planning Director and Members of the Planning Commission;
City of Newport Beach
FROM: Mr and Mrs Ed Johnson
314 Evening Canyon Rd, Corona Del Mar
SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING FOR WEDNESDAY,
DECEMBER 8, 2004 FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT 308
EVENING CANYON RD. CORONA DEL MAR, TO CONSIDER A
VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND FRONT YARD WALL
HEIGHTS.
Dear Ms Temple, and members of the Planning Commission
We have received notice of the public hearing scheduled for proposed project. We are neighbors
to this development and we expect to be greatly impacted if the project is approved as it is
currently presented.
We have several mature trees that will be destroyed by the concrete footing planned for a
proposed block wall that will be constructed along the easterly property line. Please see the
attached report, prepared by a licensed arborist, detailing the potential for tree and property
damage that will be caused by this project. Also, please be aware of California Law, Civil Code
Section 833 that states "Trees whose trunks stand wholly upon the land of one owner belongs
exclusively to him, although their roots grow into the land of another" and recent case law
Booska vs. Patel '94, where the Courts upheld the rights of owners to protect their trees.
We have tried to appeal to the applicant to alter the design for a less invasive project. We offered
the applicant manufactures literature for a less environmentally damaging type of wall. It is still a
concrete wall, but one that employs posthole footings instead of a monolithic ribbon footing. We
feel that if the footing posts can be used and properly spaced, spanning the root system of the
existing mature trees then this will mitigate the negative impacts of a concrete footing
construction. However, the applicant has ignored our proposal because as he put it he is
"building a custom house" and we "do not understand that."
However, we understand that all to well. After living in this beautiful community of Shore Cliffs
for 35 years, where every home is a custom home, we have come to appreciate the distinctive
character over each home and the mature coral trees that grace our street. The mature tree
branches are not bound by property lines and embrace each home they stand guard. We
understand and appreciate all the other mature trees including our own that have earned their
place here. We appreciate the effort the City has put into its tree preservation policies and
dedication to maintaining the City trees. Furthermore, we fully support developments that are in
harmony with current planning ordinances. We feel that the current ordinances are considerate of
1�
property developers wishing to maximize their investment and by keeping with these high
standards will maintain and improve the property values of existing residents.
These development standards allow for large estates on the smallest of lots where land is a
premium. Specifically the 6 ft. side yard setback for our Shore Cliffs community. This is not the
smallest of setbacks allowed in "other" cities. It is however, large enough for access and a
landscape buffer between structures, structures that all to often push the envelope.
Unfortunately, the 6 ft. setback does not allow for a defensible space, usually that is at least 30 ft.
and is needed to protect a neighboring structure in the event of a structural fire. The 50 ft. to 65
ft. wide lots will not support much larger setbacks even though there are those that have a higher
concern for safety and would like to see the current setback increased. But for those of us that
have conformed to the setback as it is, accepted the risks, and rewards, we feel strongly the
Planning Commission should defend the setback as set forth in the development code from any
encroachment.
Please consider that a 6' setback on a plan sheet is actually much less than that after construction.
This is because you have to account for the portion of the concrete footing that extends beyond
the face of a concrete masonry wall in the case were is is entirely on the developers property, and
the thickness of the wall. This typically leaves just a 5 ft. clear space for emergency access to the
rear portion of the lot. In this case, I understand the applicant has proposed a fireplace on one
side of the house and a stairwell on the other side and these encroachments would make it
impractical for emergency, safety and law enforcement personnel or even disabled persons to
access the rear portion of the lot without gaining entry through stairs into the inside of the house.
Also, we are concerned that the below ground garage, while intended to be properly maintained
with a sump pump to expel rain water, water that will ultimately collect in the depression, can
become a breeding ground for mosquitoes if not properly maintained. Normally this would not
be a concern but due to the development of recent events, we have had to consider this outcome.
This is because of a current situation with the existing swimming pool that the applicant has
drained several weeks ago but has not continuously maintained. The pool has collected
rainwater. Our appeals to the property owner to drain the pool of the stagnant rainwater have
been unanswered. This ultimately led to vector control being called to the property to seed the
standing water with mosquito eating fish.
This type of subterranean garage development is not consistent with the neighboring homes and
would be out of character with the neighborhood. It would set a precedent that others would soon
want to follow in their desire to build to the envelope. It posses an increased safety hazard with
the high walls next to the public right of way and that lead to the garage entrance.
The applicant has not demonstrated by providing soil reports for peer review that show
appropriate shoring methods for the soils found at the site. We have no assurance they will
maintain the lateral support to our property and adjacent properties.
For these reasons we find the development as proposed may have significant structural impacts
to the adjacent properties, environmental impacts causing death to existing mature trees,
potential for injury to people, and we respectfully request the Commission deny the request for a
variance that would allow this development as proposed to continue. By the Commissions action
NA
we pray the applicant would reconsider our efforts to work with them for a more compatible
design. With your support we believe a design can be reached that will benefit the majority of the
community.
Cordially
�tJoontt�---
r Ed and
Attachments:
Arborist Report
�5
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT OF PROPOSED WALL
CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO PROPERTY AT
314 EVENING CANYON ROAD, CORONA DEL MAR
NOVEMBER 2004
CONSULTING ARBORIST'S REPORT
Prepared for
Mr. & Mrs. Ed Johnson
Prepared by
Alden Kelley
Consulting Arborist
Vc
I
I
f
CONTENTS
ProjectElements ............................................................ ............................... 1
Summary........................................................................ ............................... 2
Background....................................................:............... ............................... 3
Description of Site Area ................................................ ............................... 4
Description of Trees ...................................................... ............................... 5
1. Coral Tree ......................................................... ............................... 5
2. Rusty Leaf Fig .................................................. ............................... 5
3. Guava ................................................................. ..............................6
4. Macadamia Nut ................................................ ............................... 7
5. Kaffir Plum ....................................................... ............................... 8
6. Honeysuckle ..................................................... ............................... 8
7. English Ivy ........................................................ ............................... 8
8. Victorian Box ................................................... ............................... 8
9. Yucca ................................................................. ..............................9
Tree Value Appraisals ................................................. ............................... 10
Wall Construction Effects ........................................... ............................... 16
1. Trenching and Footing Installation for Concrete
Block Wall Construction .......................... ............................... 16
2. Soil Chemistry Changes ................................. ............................... 17
3. Prospects for Tree Survival ............................ ............................... 17
Implications of Relevant Case Law ............................ ............................... 18
Recommendations....................................................... ............................... 19
Appendices
1. Product Literature
2. Consultant Qualifications; Fee Schedule
11
PROJECT ELEMENTS
Report date: 21 November 2004
Site study date: 18 November 2004
Subject: Analysis of effects resulting from proposed construction of a
concrete block wall along the property edge adjacent to 314
Evening Canyon Road, Corona del Mar, California.
Clients: Mr. & Mrs. Ed Johnson
Site address: 314 Evening Canyon Road
Corona del Mar, CA 92625
Phone: 949/720 -1758; 714/888 -2700
Objectives:
1. Identify and describe trees that would be impacted by construction of
concrete block wall.
2. Assess individual tree values.
3. Delineate predictable effects of proposed wall construction.
4. Reference relevant case law.
5. Propose an alternative wall type.
-1- 1�
I
f31JTi l►�`:�`�
It was reported to the consulting arborist that the purchasers of a property,
adjacent to 314 Evening Canyon Road, Corona del Mar, intend to build a
concrete block wall along the shared property line.
A study of the site and property edge trees revealed that such a construction
would jeopardize seven trees on the Johnson's land, and one city-owned tree
± at the street side.
1 It was concluded that the indicated wall construction would destroy about
j one half of each tree's roots, and would eliminate the anchorage provided by
Ithose roots.
Within an estimated one to five years of that root loss, four of the trees can
be expected to topple onto the Johnsons' property. The remainder would be
at risk of subsequent failure from induced decay of roots, root crowns, and
trunk bases.
The values of the trees were conservatively appraised as $112,000 for seven
trees on the Johnson site, and $104,000 for the streetside Coral tree, a total
of $216,000.
Under case law set in Booska v. Patel, parties which would authorize the
construction of a concrete block wall, as described to the consulting arborist,
could be found liable for tree losses and property damage which might result
therefrom.
-2- tl�p
1
BACKGROUND
I was first contacted by Ed Johnson on 28 October 2004, when he indicated
concern that the owners of the adjoining property intended to build a
concrete block wall along the property line. The wall would be installed
close to several trees at the edge of the Johnson's land.
After receiving and transmitting to those owners some information I
1 provided for a wall type that would be less injurious to the trees, Mr.
1 Johnson called me on 15 November to say that the neighbor's aim continued
to be that of installing a concrete block wall.
I therefore visited the site on 18 November, to make measurements which
would yield an assessment of the predictable effects on the trees, if a
concrete block wall were to be established as indicated.
i The present report includes descriptions of the trees, of their appraised
values, and of the effects that such wall construction would have on tree
i health, safety and survival.
It concludes with a description of the recommended alternative type wall,
and of its significantly diminished impact on the trees' root systems and
survival potential.
t
-3-
i I DESCRIPTION OF SITE AREA
The existing eight trees at risk extend along the Johnson's property edge,
' from the street to the rear of the residence. Tree bases are close to the
property line, at distances of 2 to 44 inches from the existing wooden fence.
1 Two of the trees have trunk bases which are at or beyond the fence line.
Some have a significant portion of the branch system extending over the
wooden fence, above the edge of the abutting site.
The wooden fence is supported by uprights anchored in individual concrete
footings.
1 A concrete block wall would entail continuous footing, which would sever
1 up to half of each tree's root system, along a line close to or abutting the
respective trunk bases.
t
I
-4-
i I DESCRIPTION OF TREES
1. Coral Tree. The Coral Tree (Erythrina caff "ra) was at the
+, streetside. Mrs. Johnson pointed out that it was a City -owned
tree.
The branch ends, like those of the other streetside Coral trees,
had been cut back. Height and spread were estimated as 35 x 30
feet. Trunk diameter was 40.0 inches at 4.5 feet above mean
grade. Condition rating (i.e., assessment of health, vigor and
potential longevity) was set at 50 %.
IThere was a property-edge curbing of concrete blocks, extending
1 from the property-side board fence toward the street. A line -of-
1 sight view showed that (if the curb was at the property line, and if
a concrete block wall were built to the street edge) the proposed
wall foundation would entail cutting into the trunk base of the
Coral tree. Any trenching within 10 feet of the trunk base would
I damage the root system, in my opinion.
The trunk diameter suggested an age range of 50 to 60 years for
the Coral tree.
2. Rusty -leaf fig. A Rusty -leaf fig (Ficus rubiginosa) was located
beside the driveway, near the front of the Johnson's house. It had
i
been topped rather severely, evidently as a size control measure.
Height and spread were estimated as 25 x 25 feet (about half the
-5-
3.
i
normal dimensions for the size of the trunk system). Condition
rating was set at 40 %, due to the topping and effects of nearby
hardscape.
The ficus was multi - trunked, with breast - height trunk diameters
of 13, 11.3, 11.1, 9.4, 8.8, 8.3„ and 8.2 inches. That would
correspond to the tissue mass of a single -trunk specimen of at
least 27 -inch diameter.
A property-edge wall of any type would require removal of the
9.4 -inch diameter trunk. If a wall foundation were to be installed
at the property line, the necessary trenching would cut through
the side of the trunk base.
Mrs. Johnson said the ficus was there when they purchased the
property in or about 1970, approximately 35 years ago. The
trunk sizes indicate a probable age range of 50 -60 years.
Guava. A guava (Psidium guajava) was in a bed beside a patio
area behind the garage. Mrs. Johnson said she had planted the
guava in 1978 -1980.
Height and spread were estimated as 16 x 18 feet. The trunk
diameter was 4.3 inches at I foot above ground. The tree was
overtopped by a nearby Macadamia nut tree, which depressed its
condition to 40 %.
-6-
i The trunk base was 11. inches from the wooden fence (presumed
to represent the property line). At 4 to 5 feet above ground, the
trunk was 7 inches from the fence. Trenching for wall footing, in
? the vicinity of the wooden fence, would destroy approximately
I
9
half of the guava's root system. Construction of a concrete block
wall at that proximity would probably result in significant injury
to the trunk bark.
4. Macadamia nut. A Macadamia tree (Macadamia integrifolia)
was planted by Mrs. Johnson in the early 1980's. It was a few
feet from the Guava and the trunk base was 6 inches from the
wooden fence.
Height and spread were estimated as 35 -40 x 25 feet. At 4.5 feet,
the trunk diameters were 5.4, 5., 3.4, 2, 2, 1.75 and 1.5 inches. A
single -trunk specimen having the same cross - sectional area
would have a diameter of 9.1 inches.
Condition rating was judged to be 70 %.
A wall footing with the edge at the fence location would result in
cutting off approximately one -half of the root system of the
Macadamia tree.
-7- XI
i
, I
5. Kaffir plum. The Kaffir plum (Harpehyllum kq ffii-um) was in the
backyard area, at 44 inches from the wooden fence. Like the
other trees, it had been topped. Most of the branch system
extended over the wooden fence.
1 Height and spread were estimated as 13 x 20 feet. Trunk
diameter was 10.4 inches. Condition rating was 40 %.
6. Honeysuckle. A honeysuckle shrub (tentative identification
Lonicera heckrolti) had been planted near the Kaffir plum, 8
inches from the wall.
It was estimated as 16 -18 feet in height. The steins were 2.8 and
2.4 inches in diameter at 6 inches above ground. Condition
Irating was 40 %.
7. English ivy. The fence behind the Kaffir plum and the
honeysuckle was covered with English ivy (Hedera helix).
Removal of the fence would eliminate the ivy vine, but it could
probably re- establish from the root system.
8. Victorian box. Toward the rear of the backyard was a Victorian
box (Pittosporum undulatum). Height and spread were estimated
as 14 x 16 feet. Trunk diameter was 12.7 inches. Condition
rating was 50 %.
-8-
f
The trunk base was 6 inches from the fence, and nearly touched
the fence at 4 -5 feet above ground.
} 9. Yucca. At the far end of the backyard was a Spanish bayonet
(Yucca aloifolia). Height and spread were estimated as 25 x 20
feet. The trunk was 16.5 inches in diameter. The expanded base
was pressed against the fence. Condition rating was 60 %.
-9-
TREE VALUE APPRAISALS
The plant materials described above have measurable value. That value was
computed by the Replacement Equivalency Method. The procedure defines
value as the cost of replacement in kind, i.e., with another specimen of the
same kind, size, and condition, in the same location as the appraisal subject.
The method identifies the commercial cost to plant a tree of a given size (as
trunk diameter) in a ready- access site. "Ready- access" denotes a location at
which the tree
can
be offloaded
from a delivery truck, directly
into a
planting hole.
That
cost, called
the reference value, is modified
by the
ratings assigned to the species and condition of the appraisal tree. Species
and condition are expressed as percentages of the ideal or optimum. The
lreference value is multiplied by the mean of the species and condition
ratings, to give the assessed value of the subject specimen.
None of the trees in this study can be considered as being both in a ready
access site and of a transplantable size.
Replacement would require a planting hole with a diameter 10 times trunk
width, plus an additional 2 to 5 feet. That would entail extensive hardscape
removal and replacement, and extending the planting holes well into the
adjoining site.
-10-
Actual replacement would thus entail special costs well beyond the appraisal
values indicated by the Replacement Equivalency Method. Therefore the
following appraisals constitute extremely conservative, limited values, as
compared with the actual costs of replacement in kind.
1. Coral tree. Even if it were physically feasible to transplant a coral
tree of this size it would not be biologically tenable. The size, age,
and soft - wooded structure of the tree would precluded post - transplant
survival for more than a few years.
J Because the tree is literally irreplaceable with a same -size specimen,
-� its worth can be regarded as greater than the figure calculated below.
Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
Reference value, 40 -inch caliper, $181,000*
Rating average = (Species rating + Condition rating) /2
Species rating 85 %; Condition rating 50%
Adjusted rating average 57.5%
Assessed value = $181,000 x 0.575
= $104,075; $104,000 to nearest $1,000
*Based on logarithm plot projections that give the same size -cost
relationships as nursery trees of 0.75 to 12 inch trunk diameter.
2. Rusty -leaf fig
lAssessed value = Reference value x Rating average
Reference value, 27 -inch caliper, $138,000
Rating average = (Species rating + Condition rating )/2
Species rating 90 %; Condition rating 40%
Adjusted rating average 45%
Assessed value = $138,000 x 0.45
ll = $62,100; $62,000 to nearest $1,000
,I
-.� 3. Guava
1 Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
1 Reference value, 4.3 -inch caliper, $1,470
Rating average = (Species rating + Condition rating) /2
Species rating 80 %; Condition rating 40%
Adjusted rating average 40%
i) Assessed value = $1,470 x 0.40
JJ = $588; $600 to nearest $100
-12-
i ��
}
4. Macadamia
} Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
Reference value, 9.1 -inch caliper, $8,500
Rating average = (Species rating + Condition rating )/2
} Species rating 85 %; Condition rating 70%
Rating average 77.5%
} Assessed value = $8,500 x 0.775
_ $6,587.50; $6,600 to nearest $100
+.� 5. Kaffir plum
} Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
Reference value, 10.4 -inch caliper, $10,000
} Rating average = (Species rating + Condition rating )/2
} Species rating 100 %; Condition rating 40%
Adjusted rating average 50%
.� Assessed value = $10,000 x 0.50
_ $5,000
-13-
�a
6. Honeysuckle
Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
i Reference value, 3.7 -inch caliper, $1,120
IRating average = (Species rating + Condition rating )/2
1 Species rating 75 %; Condition rating 40%
I Adjusted rating average 37.5%
1 Assessed value = $1,120 x 0.375
J = $420; $400 to nearest $100
7. English ivy. (Value not computed.)
8. Victorian box
Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
Reference value, 12.7 -inch caliper, $20,000
Rating average = (Species rating + Condition ratingY2
j Species rating 90 %; Condition rating 50%
J Adjusted rating average 60%
Assessed value = $20,000 x 0.60
= $12,000
-14-
3\
C
9. Yucca
Assessed value = Reference value x Rating average
Reference value, 16.5 -inch caliper, $42,000
1 Rating average = (Species rating + Condition rating) /2
1 Species rating 65 %; Condition raring 60%
u1 Rating average 62.5%
f Assessed value = $42,000 x 0.625
$26,250; $26,000 to nearest $1,000
Tree value summary
1 Coral tree $104,000
Rusty -leaf fig 62,000
I Guava 600
Macadamia 6,600
Kaffir plum 5,000
Honeysuckle 400
Victorian box 12,000
Yucca 26,000
J
Total $216,600
The amount of $216,000 ($104,000 of which represents the City's Coral
tree; and $112,000 of which represents 7 trees on the Johnson property) is a
very conservative measure of the trees' value. Actual costs of replacement
in kind, or the future value loss if the subject trees were replaced with small
specimens, could readily amount to two times the calculated figures shown
here.
-15-
1 ��--
1
WALL CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS
Trenching and footing installation for concrete block wall
construction.
The foundations for a concrete block wall would involve trenching
and pouring of concrete for the entire length of the wall. Footing
concrete is extruded beyond the edge of the trench. If the edge of
the trench were at the property line, the extruded concrete would
extend into the Johnson's property. To avoid that outcome, the
trench and wall would need to be about one foot interior to the
abutting property edge.
The trenching operation would sever most or all of the major roots
of the subject trees. Root severing would include cutting into the
trunk bases of the Coral and Yucca trees; it would cut roots of most
of the other trees at 6 to 10 inches from trunk bases.
Half or more of each tree's root system would be lost. The attendant
removal of anchorage would leave all but the Yucca (and perhaps
the Kaffir plum) at extreme risk of toppling onto the Johnson's
property. In addition to tree loss, such events would have the effect
of damaging property, and of potential risk to humans.
-16-
2. Soil chemistry changes.
The concrete footing and wall mortar would leach calcium
compounds into the soil. That increases alkalinity, which can be
detrimental to trees. The combined effects of root loss, cut ends of
roots, and increased alkalinity, would promote decay. The root
decay, under such conditions as described here, would progress into
the root crowns and trunk bases of the trees. If the trees did not fall
over because of lost anchorage, they would probably fail at a later
time as a result of root crown decay.
3. Prospects for tree survival.
Only the Yucca and the Kaffir plum would have a fair prospect of
surviving the construction of a property-edge concrete block wall.
The others would be expected to fail, and in most cases, topple over,
within one to five years after wall construction.
� -17-
I
IWLICATIONS OF RELEVANT CASE LAW
In Booska v. Patel (San Francisco Superior Court A061749), it was
established that a "Landowner cannot sever tree roots on property without
regard to injuries inflicted to adjoining landowner" (Daily Appellate Report
6804, May 24, 1994).
In the present instance, that means that if a concrete block wall were to be
constructed along the adjoining property edge, with the result that one or
more of the Johnsons' trees were to fail, the party authorizing the wall
building would be responsible for the loss.
It is logical that any associated property damage or personal injury would
likewise be a matter of accountability.
This report serves as actual notice of the probable hazard condition which
would result from trenching operations to construct a property -edge concrete
block wall.
-18-
J
:1
RECOMMENDATIONS
The foregoing information should serve to establish the inadvisability of
constructing a concrete block wall in proximity to the subject trees.
A safe (and visually more attractive) alternative would be that of installing a
structure such as those described in the attached commercial brochure of the
American Technocrete Corporation.
The Woodcrete® or Brickcrete® fences require footing for posts on 5 -foot
centers. The 1 x 1 -foot post footings would leave 4/5 of the tree root
systems undisturbed.
At least some of the post footings for the existing wooden fence would be
removed and used for the new construction. For those locations, there
should be little or no root damage involved.
The end result would be an aesthetically appealing, effective viewshield and
privacy screen; and a structure which could be installed without putting the
trees and other property elements at risk.
I strongly recommend that this or a similar approach be used, as a viable
alternative to a concrete block wall.
-19-
_ IL
u
- •,..nw_ �.v- a,- ofsxfrtuir s�m�:.ar,s .. .; �.i I. .., ,.,...
:.H
z
I
rki
b
z
I
�I .- - 1 • e• ♦.
• k: F� I • •-• r •_ r p •r
l 11 I1 I I I l�l -�� • • ••
.ry 31 WEB r- .
•
�e� moral
il� e/l IA:19 ,
f' -NL f'��Ly�V�+' 'T£^_j� - �I1 •�1� �1'Al� N - e 1 . 1 -
�� W� � elk .. 1 �;, •
�,ffi7.� ®Rkf�.�i: / 1, p� `�.: 1 • •.
pii v
el
1 rT
11 �_� §•' f 4 f
f
ui•6,N! �lv« d
t
M.
_
t fj rte--" c.•ww�
NJ
n taN\ f a� rb a fjl f - r'$ny •K �i �t° �ri�l� t„r _ �
,t
+ k
7
Y Fg:e.
S �
s� T
Til
lw
(qqµk
A iii 7TH" '• �°'
I
k
y�.
V£Cf t1ie+
corxinualfy'
everlasting
captures t >'
inn: ecwttorrt ,..
Using
cons
®
i that,dt surll
7
Y Fg:e.
S �
s� T
Til
lw
(qqµk
A iii 7TH" '• �°'
I
k
4
✓ /'."mom three
Mft
n:
i
f
kliL-
THE COMPANY
Woodcretes and Brickcrete s were first developed by Los Angeles based American Technocrere - -
- -
Corporation in 1982. Since that time, the systems have become increasingly specified by architects,
residential and commercial builders, contractors and others in the construction industry.
State of the art molding equipment and patented precast fences have been the trademark . of, our
company since its inception.
Our ongoing endeavor is the continued development of new precast concrete fence products,
available from an expanding network of manufacturers throughout the United States
FENCE INSTALLATION
Installation is easy due to the system's simple design. The I shaped posts are set into 12 -inch ..�
diameter holes drilled five feet apart, the posts am then aligned, leveled and anchored in a concrete.
-
footing similar to other types of fence poste
WO011C$ETI#e TtAYI. -n
The panels then insert into and down the track of the posts: The bottom panel keys into and is.
"
supported by the footing around each post. The additional panels interlock and stack in one foot
p SECTION:
"
:
b
The fence is complete once our unique cap rail trim is installed.
WOOOCRE7E`"- AND BRICKCRETEs OFFER SIGNIFICANT BENEFITS COMPARED WITH OTHER
a®anR
L
FENCES:
`
.'
a
• Warm aesthetic appearance
• Versatile design
;
• No maintenance
• Cost effectiveness
RAIL 85CTION
• Same texture on both sidesaue
s
• invisible panel interlock
• Cap rail trim included
}�
n
• Color that endures
Ij �
• Quick, clean installation
era
• Functional In arty climate
• Can not rot or burn
• No termites
• No 'bad" side
SPECIFICATIONS
/ aitsr
Panels, posts, and rails have equal texture on both sides.
•Integral color and concrete k thoroughly mixed& vibrated and shall
_
attar a strength of 4000 psi at 28 days.
• Steel mesh reinforced panels and rebar reinforced posts & rails. ..
Rebar conforms to A.S.T.M. A615, grade 40.
O
g l
+ Posts are set 5 feet apart. Ranch Rail ibsts are set 8 feet apart.'F"sga'
—zl- -
Post footing depth varies with soil conditions; wind load and height.
-
Information requests relating to products availability and producton
equipment contact:
AMERICAN TECHNOCRETE CORPORATION
12358 Ventura Blvd., Suite 606
Studio City, California 91604 USA
Telephone: 818.990.3362 or 800.624.WALL
Fax: 818.990.3382 www.technocrete.com
Each manufacturer is individually owned and operated. Woodorete @'and .
Brickcrete® are registered trademarks of American Techriocrets Corp. .
Patents issued and pending. All. rights reserved;, ®1993 American `
Technocrete Corp. We reserve the:dght to. change prim, .design or
specifications without Incurring obligation::
ad.t.d mrbnge ... .
Al . j. jr Z.) Z.) W-M
he Fencestone" Wall System unites the warm
ambiance of "dry stacked" stone with economical,
lasting precast concrete panels, posts and caps. Utilizing
steel and fiber reinforcement in high strength colored
concrete, Fencestone" will fulfill any requirement for an
attractive, maintenance free wall. The timeless beauty of
rugged stone, crafted with clefts and crevices is shared
equally on both sides of the site assembled wall.
Throughout the day, shadows cast by the sun,
accentuate the texture of the wall surface.1 foot by 5 foot
panels meet invisibly in recesses created by the deeply
defined stone impressions.
The innovative characteristics of Fencestone- will
enhance with distinction, both your project and your
reputation.
a�
DETAILS
r=_i
FRONT MEW -PMa 1-0. PM
T& R corrals '
Fencestone° Walls are used as:
Perimeter Walls
Landscape Walls
Property Line Dividers
Community Monument Walls
Highway Sound Barriers
Planters Walls
Security and Privacy Fences
Pool and Patio Screens
• Warm Aesthetic Appearance
• Versatile In Design And Application
• No Maintenance
• Cost Effectiveness
• Same Texture On Both Sides
• Invisible Panel Interlock
• Panel And Post Cap Trim Included
• Color That Endures
• Quick, Clean Installation
• Functional In Any Climate
SPECIFICATIONS
• Panels, posts and caps have texture on both sides.
• Integral color and concrete is thoroughly mixed and vibrated and shall
attain a minimum strength of 4000 psi at 28 days
• Galvanized steel mesh reinforced panel and rebar reinforced posts.
Reber conforms to A.S.T. M. A615, grade 40.
• Posts are set 5 feet apart.
• Post footing depth varies with soil conditions, wind load and height.
Information requests relating to products availability and production
equipment contact:
AMERICAN TECHNOCRETE CORPORATION
3518 Cahuenga Boulevard West, Suite 200
Los Angeles, California 90068 USA
Telephone: (213) 874 -2427 or (800) 624 -WALL
Fax: (213)874 -4338
Each manufacturer is Individually owned and operated. Woodcrete•, Bridkcrete•
and Fencestane- are registered trademarks of American Technocrete Corp.
Patents issued and pending. All rights reserved ®1996 American Technocrats Corp.
We reserve the right to charge price, design or specifications without incurring obligation
Printed in the U.S.A.
r.
,I
POST SECTIONS
At
ALDEN KELLEY
Consulting Arborist/Expert Witness
1309 Evergreen Avenue F -2, Fullerton, California 92835
I. S.A. Certified Arborist No. 267 Business I.D. no. 497 -30 -4149
Office: 7141990 -4398 Cell: 7141809 -3321 Fax: 7141990 -6741 email.• AKelleyArborist@aol.com
CREDENTIALS
September 2004
EXPERIENCE:
Consulting arborist 21 years
Expert witness 19 years
Tree care and maintenance 20 years
Writing, editing (scientific and technical) 20 years
Research (plant sciences) 7 years
Teaching (college, adult ed.: biology, botany, horticulture) 13 years
EMPLOYMENT:
1985 - present
Consulting Arborist, Expert Witness, Author (Southern California)
1981-1985
Tree maintenance service (Orange County, CA); Consulting Arborist
1980-1981
Cell Biologist (Beverly Hills, CA)
1978-1979
Plant care services (Cypress, CA)
1966-1977
Associate Professor of Biology, Lycoming College (Williamsport, PA)
1964-1966
NIH Postdoctoral Research Trainee, The University of Texas (Austin, TX)
1962-1963
Assistant Professor of Biology, Parsons College (Fairfield, IA)
1958-1962
NIH Predoctoral Research Trainee, Purdue University (Lafayette, IN)
1956-1958
Research Associate: Seed treatment, Iowa State University (Ames, IA)
1952-1955
Tree trimmer; Teaching Assistant, Iowa State University (Ames, IA)
1950-1951
Groundskeeper's assistant (Springfield, MO)
EDUCATION-
B.S. (Horticulture) Iowa State University, Ames, IA (1954)
M.S. (Plant Physiology) Iowa State University, Ames, IA (1958)
Ph.D. (Plant Morphology; minors: Biochemistry, Plant Physiology) Purdue University, Lafayette, IN (1962)
Postdoctoral studies (Cell ultrastrocture; electron microscopy) The University of Texas, Austin, TX (1964 - 66)
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:
California Urban Forests Council
International Society of Arboriculture
`5
Alden Kelley
CredouWs -2
EXPERT WITNESS
Time period: 1985 — 2004 More than 200 cases: 60% plaintiff, 40% defendant; 75 depositions; 60 court or
mediation testimonies
Subjects: Damages to trees
Tree loss or damage: 64 (54 plaintiff, 10 defendant)
Mismanagement: 3 (2 plaintiff; I defendant)
i
View clearance: 11 (9 plaintiff, 2 defendant)
Damages attributed to trees
Hardscape damage: 17 (6 plaintiff; 11 defendant)
1 Trip and fall: 35 (25 plaintiff; 10 defendant)
_. Personal injury: 29 (13 plaintiff; 16 defendant)
Wrongful death: 8 (3 plaintiff; 5 defendant)
Misdesign: 4 (2 plaintiff; 2 defendant)
Nuisance effects: 4 (1 plaintiff; 3 defendant)
Miscellaneous (fire, flood, gas leak, etc.): 25 (6 plaintiff; 19 defendant)
' I Tree value appraisal methods used (court accepted)
1986 - 1989: International Society of Arboriculture; 6 cases
1990 - 1995: Replacement Cost Method; 34 cases
1996 - 2004: Replacement Equivalency Method; 40 cases
Venues: Los Angeles County; Orange County; San Bernardino County; Riverside County; Santa Barbara
County; Inyo County; Marin County.
-1
Alden Kelley
Credentials - 3
CONSULTING ARBORIST
Time period: 1984 - 2004 More than 350 projects
Clientele: homeowners
homeowner associations
i
corporations
I municipalities (city, county, state)
i
insurance companies
parks; historic preservation sites
developers
schools; libraries
i Functions: tree value appraisal; damage assessment
tree management guidelines
tree protection and preservation
hazard tree analysis and treatment protocols
' tree relocation standards
education
I professional standards and ratings
tree roots, soil and hardscape analyses
i tree selection; landscape design analysis
r
diagnosis of diseases, decline or death of trees
Selected consulting projects:
i Parkway tree root/hardscape conflicts, City of Lakewood.
i Oak tree inventory, Lake Sherwood site, Woodland Hills.
j Aliso Viejo treescape design and substrate analysis.
Survey of tree root/hardscape relationships of desert gum and silver dollar gum.
Native tree stand analysis and relocation project, Foothill Ranch.
i
Analysis of landscape design and management- induced problems, Casta del Sol, Mission Viejo.
Study of abnormal variegation in Myoporum foliage, southern California coastal areas.
The value of urban greenbelts in Southern California.
Treescape design and management analysis, Sony Pictures Studios and Tri-Star.
Tree inventory and relocation program, Kaiser- Permanente, Fontana.
Tree management; historic site preservation, The Village Green, Los Angeles.
Tree preservation; long range management/replacement, Dana Woods, Dana Point.
Elementary and high school treescape analyses, enhancement, Lynwood.
Tree condition analysis; management guidelines, Coto de Caza
Tree status assessment; corrective and maintenance procedures, Hope Household, North Hollywood �^
Alden Kelley
Credentials - 4
HISTORIC SITE PROTECTION/PRESERVATION PROJECTS
City of Rancho Cucamonga 1986. Historic Preservation Survey of 60 patens and 353 eucalyptus trees designated as
historic landmarks.
Watts Towers, Watts 1988. Analysis of tree encroachment on walls and walks.
I
l
Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch 1988. Tree and grounds survey and preservation recommendations.
Minter House, Santa Ana 1989. Avocado tree protection and preservation.
Historic Adobes, Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve 2000. Protection and preservation of Coast live oaks.
The Village Green, Los Angeles 2000. Tree protection, preservation and replacement.
COMMUNITY SERVICES:
Tree Society of Orange County: Arboriculture Chair; educational programs; tree planting and pruning
workshops
TreePeople: lecturer; information resource
t Fullerton Arboretum: Arborfest; fruit tree pruning demonstrations; tree plantings; Hispanic tree worker
l training program
Xeriscape: lecturer
f University of California, Riverside: tree management seminars
i U.C. Cooperative Extension Service: seminar programs; lecturer
Orange County E.M.A./Parks System: lecturer; advisory functions
CRiun/environmental groups and organizations: preservation and restoration of trees, tree stands and
wildlife habitats (inventories, analyses, valuations, recommendationsi conferences, public hearings)
Master Gardener training program: instruction on tree selection and care
Alden Kelley
Credentials - 5
TEACHING
College level courses (Parsons College; Lycoming College)
General biology
General botany
Plant anatomy
Plant morphology
Plant physiology
Non - flowering plants
Electron microscopy
Field techniques in botany
Evolution
Adult education (Lycoming College)
General horticulture
Plant propagation
Seminars (Various academic, professional and public service organizations in southern California)
.
Pruning landscape trees
Selection of landscape tree species
Tree value appraisal
Cost- effective tree management
Decay in trees
1
Drought tolerant native plants for southern California landscapes
Tree roots: structure, growth and management
1 Tree planting operations
Troubleshooting tree problems
Relocation of mature trees
Hispanic tree worker training program (Fullerton Arboretum)
Master Gardener training program (trees)
0
Alden Kelley
Credentials - 6
TO PROFESSIONAL GROUPS
1985 How a tree gets its shape (Western Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture; Palm Springs)
Proper tree maintenance (Mission Viejo Company; Mission Viejo)
1986 Trees and money (San Diego Turf and Landscape Conference; San Diego)
Understanding decay in trees (Western Chapter, International Society of Arboriculture; Santa Barbara)
Pruning: art or science? (Annual Turf and Landscape Conference; Anaheim)
1987 Maintenance of trees (Xeriscape '87; Santa Ana)
Selection of trees (Home landscaping series; Metropolitan Water District; Riverside)
Tree pruning (Caltrans tree maintenance staff, Los Angeles)
Maintenance of streetside trees (Tree maintenance staff; Lakewood)
A systematic method of troubleshooting your landscape problems (Third Annual Troubleshooting
Seminar; University of California; Riverside)
Tree Care (Mission Viejo Company; Mission Viejo)
Oak Tree Diagnostic Clinic (U.C. Cooperative Extension Service; Ventura County)
Tree management (Seminar: Profitably Managing Multihousing Landscape Dollars; University of
California; Riverside)
1988 Understanding tree roots (Tree Management Seminar; University of California Cooperative Extension
Service; Ventura County)
A system for selecting appropriate trees based on soil, climate, space, pest and disease factors,
maintenance costs and esthetics (Tree seminar: Selecting Trees for Streets, Parks and Landscapes;
Riverside)
Problems and expenses resulting from selection of inappropriate trees for specific sites ('free seminar:
Selecting Trees for Streets, Parks and Landscapes; Riverside)
1989 A new approach to tree value appraisal (Street Tree Seminar/International Society of Arboriculture Tree
Management Symposium: Living With Our Trees; Arcadia)
Selection and management of trees (San Diego Xeriscape'89; San Diego)
1990 Pruning to reduce green waste (L.A. Recycling and Waste Reduction Division Workshop; Los Angeles)
1991 Pruning for tree health and increased property value (U. C. Cooperative Extension Short Course in
Horticulture; Los Angeles, Buena Park, San Bernardino)
1992 Successful tree production - an arborist's viewpoint (Wholesale Nursery Production Seminar, Mt. San
Antonio College; Walnut)
A celebration of trees (California Association of Nurserymen, California State University; Fullerton)
Tree management and developing standards for success (Tree Pruning Seminar; U.C. Riverside)
1993 Tree nutrition and fertilization (Arborist Certification Training Program; Riverside)
Water management: trees in the landscape (Water Efficient Landscape Conference, Santa Clara Water
District; San Jose)
Oak growth and development as related to pruning practice (Oak Tree Maintenance Symposium,
Descanso Gardens; La Canada - Flintridge)
1994 Pruning small trees: a different way to see trees (Western Chapter, International Society of
Arboricultuse/Street Tree Seminar Conference; Anaheim)
50
Alden Kelley
Credentials - 7
TREE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES
' (leaflets prepared for distribution at seminars and to clients, professionals and others)
1984 Correct and incorrect pruning methods
Best times to prune broadleaf trees in southern California
Effects of pruning method on tree value
1985 How to specify and recognize quality pruning
f
General specifications for pruning trees
Evaluation of trees
1986 Tree value approximation: a method for estimating the real estate value of your trees
Tree selection
Tree species likely to damage hardscape
i Tree management
The eucalyptus longhom borer: what can we do about it?
i
1987 Maintenance of trees
Tree selection: species
Tree selection: specimens
Selection of trees for streetside plantings
A systematic method for troubleshooting your landscape problems
1988 Site preparation: a neglected essential in tree management
Evaluation of trees by the PRC method
1989 One hundred trees for southern California landscapes
Tree value appraisal: why replacement cost is a more appropriate method than the I.S.A. formula method
1990 Drought tolerant native trees and shrubs for southern California landscapes
KAT program (Kids and Trees): guidelines for tree studies in elementary schools
Pruning effect on tree value: rough approximations
Replacement cost as a basis for assessing value of landscape trees
Space for roots
Species ratings and rankings for landscape trees in four southern California plantclimate regions
1991 Condition rating correction factors in tree value assessment
Holistic tree management: applied ecology ...in landscapes as miniature ecosystems
Replacement cost as a measure of tree value: standardized wholesale costs and prices for installation in
ready - access areas
Species ratings and condition ratings in tree value assessment
Trees for small spaces: soil volume
1992 Small trees and tree- shrubs for southern California coastal landscapes ( plantclimate zone 24)
i
:i
`l
r
i
Alden Kelley
Credentials - 8
GUIDELINES, continued
1993 Mulches and top dressings
Root corridors
Soil ecosystems, soil chemistry, and root system enhancement
1994 Replacement equivalency method of tree value assessment
Tree care: seeing the whole tree
1995 Ground cover species for plantclimate zone 22
Inspection of single -stem broadleaf shade trees in 15- gallon nursery containers
Mycorrhizae
Roots: structure, function, biomass, soil needs
So many roots, so little space: what's a tree to do?
Tree species for small spaces: plantclimate zone 22
Tree roots and sidewalks; problems & solutions in Southern California cities
1997 Tree relocation standards
1998 Same tree, different appraisal values: how come?
Sources of differences in tree appraisal values in damage claims
Transplanting established trees: effective preservation or costly killing?
Tree root systems and hardscape problems
Pine pitch canker
1999 Tree species for space- limited parkway strips: 3 -5 foot parkway width: 30 feet or less in height and spread
2000 Street trees: guidelines for achieving maximum benefits at lowest long term cost
2001 Replacement Equivalency Method in damage assessment rationale and methodology
2002 Pine trees: basic biology
Growth rate adjustment for reference value
2003 REM log plot projections of wholesale value, 32 — 80 inch caliper
2004 Tree value: a general guide for preliminary estimates
Oleanders and Oleander leaf scorch: replacement shrub possibilities
Colloidal silver treatment...: A concept for consideration in special cases
i
I
Alden Kelley
Ge4en ials - 9
Publications:
1. . Kelley, A.G. 1958. Floral induction in apples. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
2. Kelley, A.G. and S.N. Postlethwait. 1961. Fein gamemphytes as a tool for the study of morphogensis.
Proc. Ind. Acad. Sci. (1960) 70:56 -60.
3. Kelley, A.G. and S.N. Postlethwait. 1962. Effects of 2- chloroethyhrirnethylammonium chloride on
fern gametophytes. Am. J. Bot. 49:779 -786.
4. Kelley, A.G. 1962. Studies on morphogensis in gametophytes of Pteridium aquilinum (L.) Kuhn.
Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, IN.
5. Mollenhauer, H.H., D.J. Morre and A.G. Kelley. 1965. The widespread occurrence of plant cytosomes
resembling animal microbodies. Protoplasma 62(1):44 -52.
6. Skvarla, J.J. and A.G. Kelley. 1968. Rapid preparation of pollen and spore exines for electron
microscopy. Stain Tech. 43:139 -144.
7. Skvarla, J.J. and A.G. Kelley. 1969. Fine structure of Canna generalis sporocytes: dictysomes. Pre-
congress Conference on Pollen Physiology. 50th Annual Meeting, AAAS, Pacific Div. Aug. 18 -23,
1969. Washington State University.
8. Skvarla, I.I. and A.G. Kelley. 1971. Dictyosome development during microsporogenesis in Carina
generalis. In: J. Heslop- Harrison, ed. Pollen: Development and Physiology. Butterworths, London.
9. Kelley, A. 1985. Cost - effective tree care. 1. What is a tree worth? Orange County Apartment News
25(8):22ff.
10. Kelley, A. 1985. Cost - effective tree care. 2. The effect of the pruning method on tree value. Orange
County Apartment News 25(9):13 -14.
11. Kelley, A. 1985. Cost - effective tree care. 3. Selecting a reliable tree care service. Orange County
Apartment News 25(10):19 -20.
12. Kelley, A. 1985. Cost - effective tree care. 4. Specifications for tree pnuring. Orange County
Apartment News. 25(11):9ff.
13. Kelley, A. 1985. Cost - effective tree care. 5. How to recognize quality pruning. Orange County
Apartment News. 25(12):35.
14. Kelley, A. 1985. Topping: the most expensive form of pruning. Arbor Age 5(11):20ff.
15. Kelley, A. 1987. City trees: are they worth it? Arbor Age 7(4):12ff.
16. Sydnor, T.D., G. Watson and A. Kelley. 1988. Interim- transplanted blue spruce show improved
branch, root development. The Landscape Contractor 29(7):14 -15.
17. Degan, J., J. Frainie, A. Kelley and A. Remyn. 1989. Street trees suitable for southern California.
(chart) Street Tree Seminars, Inc.
18. Mahoney, M.T., A.H. Remyn, M.P. Trotter, W.R. Trotter, A.G. Kelley, A.S. Epperson and M.E.
Chamness, Eds. 1994 Street Trees Recommended for Southern California, Rev. Street Tree Seminars,
Anaheim, CA.
53
ALDEN KELLEY
Consulting Arborist/Expert Witness
1309 Evergreen Avenue F -2, Fullerton, California 92835
I.S.A. Certified Arborist No. 267 Business I.D. no. 497 - 30-4149
Office: 7141990 -4398 Cell: 7141809 -3321 Fax: 7141990 -6741 email: AKelleyArborist@aol.com
FEE SCHEDULE
Effective 1 September 2004
Expert Witness:
Services include time entailed in investigation, analysis, research, report preparation,
conferences, testimony, and travel
Rate: $300 per hour
Retainer: Advance of $3,000 required prior to initiation of work
Successive $3,000 advances upon depletion of previous payments
Balance refundable if time and expenses total less than advance
payment.
Consulting Arborist:
Services include time entailed in site studies, conferences, research, analysis, report
preparations, meetings, correspondence, and travel.
Rates:
Short-term projects: $200 per hour.
Time estimate less than 10 hours: no advance payment.
Time estimate 10 -15 hours: $1,000 advance payment.
Time estimate more than 15 hours: $2,000 advance payment.
Long -term projects: $150 per hour.
Advance payment of $3,000.
Successive $3,000 advances upon depletion of previous payments.
Secretarial/Assistant
} Services include site assistance report compilation and additional services as
h'P�S� reP P
required
Rate: $50 per hour
Expenses
Costs: per receipted items (Testing, analytical services, air travel, lodging, special supplies or
professional costs)
Per diem: (for one or more days away from home base): $150 per day, in addition to travel and
lodging. Advance payment required. j i
November 24, 2004
Phone call received from Colonel James A. Crane of 323 Driftwood Road
RE: PA2004 -265 for MD2004 -084, 308 Evening Canyon Road
Col. Crane objects to the new construction at 308 Evening Canyon Road.
J�
January 11, 2005
Phone call received from Colonel James A. Crane of 323 Driftwood Road,
concerning 308 Evening Canyon Road (MD2004 -084). Col. Crane objects to the
new construction at 308 Evening Canyon Road.
EXHIBIT 2
APPEAL APPLICATION 5')
i.i OF NEWPORT BEA — H
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE MODIFICATIONS COMMITTEE
Application No.
Name of Appellant C-0N7Aq— PHi(iiiii. Ai votA wk)
or person filing: C'iI S Phone: �7« 1-4I'-6(001D
Address: a EFVEIJ106 CA"yop 1 i'oillll
Date of Modifications Committee decision: /� 6 , 20
Regarding application of: 5FU-./ S for
(Description of application filed with Modifications Committee) 2fW f ltf Z /A14,J:S
• i ,
i -
� •/Iti W,
r it Ft 1 t�
Reasons • Appeal:
• ice, a i.. /r .vi tJI
IfO. ♦ ♦ +
1120" ♦ I i Ir /I Ax>00701yi
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date 1a -2 O
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: ,IaC,(:L'/h't. 6f a 20 (W.
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the Planning Commission within thirty (30)
days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date
(NBMC Sec. 20.95.050)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.040B
Appeal Fee: $975.00 pursuant to City Council Resolution 2004 -060.
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000)
F: \USERS \PLN \Shared \Forms\Old Forms\lforms \modappeal.doc 5�
Revised 08 -25 -04 jcr
syjj allayqpq -7 -TJelF
OD
0
QL
H I
LQ
€F
looti
lit -1 it
I
Im
Ila 22
'411
-%4
li't Ads"AMIA fi, A
is
I I
M
3e @3 :Y:tei.li9i�5S�lir. ?Is
0
Rd+^J9".1 WRY MY vWw 'p-H v.mD •J A.-I sm +'�+
.— " - .. _ 0096 -LY8 I4iG)
ssssE RFO+oQl10 7���6 F+�3Y ww a Ym1 ram o• Ymr YlV Iplllr an
r - OOOS pmr ivar/s `1r1 a t 1 HH_3 apy
srlL? anaar4a9 (rep __' 1Flllll[lOH DOM TdVO
lip� !d
Fen' lstt 38 �Fa4i ±F LEgpgya Ea '6pF ; e8�$ (y
�g g Pii �� Fa" �. Q fer yny g
i
F y �sEpi
;)" III I
8$ ?�ii' 1Fa; 4419 a 6P$ a *a@ �a^ P?i
R O S
all g i
a ]] p gI J
si P re
B 6F'�i�i3i�� a tl a9
84F S.9
it
€ a
-lilt
10111.11 try ;
N all Ilf
�Fe f i Y
p {
111 F §iFa
e
! f e p q{
�gig,�
F i F py
ffi
Q
a
O
Q
4
h
0
4
(O3-
•Y¢1•m•� �.� rmn •vwa� b••rr ca(br, fnea.a wr �..�. ...
II =I
l�yFIn
lp 9$z
ot,
}t!
a , a S �a � a �" ,.. � 5 J°• l�s'$ Y4 8 � 9 �� � ya+ ! a�
�9$ d@ s $ 3. Y p g $ a 3 ! r p •a R
4 g till A 4 a? 9. 2b5 a H 1 "s y' a r 's } a 9 a }a $• E "Y a' C5
`y ! > p? z 9 E Y E a Y a a s "$•° � `_ ! i� a s;; a g} Q
¢.P aa��
'Yp ip
a i Fg d °¢¢ 3 a s Y y ggeyp ipe@ d$ s9 } ag pp g}' a q s . gjp9
g #$ !l
[f3e39F 7aiY 3SM$ 3 9 S9! a3 983�'I} a 3 i f# i? F i s ie i; 2 3 !!? F i'$ p 8 i t i d$:} 8 §i1F6ii
i
;03
osFaer �YUroffryj '9�w6 Y+o�•N wa.t h v n °» avn• m..w•. i
GOOF 3 a q
- Door am• }eq aq
`19'
-T
' SrfLy allaar4e9 !8 XreR` gg�q IIo mmaAAppr
aYgmn a}wm -
'' --. ao. - --
II =I
l�yFIn
lp 9$z
ot,
}t!
a , a S �a � a �" ,.. � 5 J°• l�s'$ Y4 8 � 9 �� � ya+ ! a�
�9$ d@ s $ 3. Y p g $ a 3 ! r p •a R
4 g till A 4 a? 9. 2b5 a H 1 "s y' a r 's } a 9 a }a $• E "Y a' C5
`y ! > p? z 9 E Y E a Y a a s "$•° � `_ ! i� a s;; a g} Q
¢.P aa��
'Yp ip
a i Fg d °¢¢ 3 a s Y y ggeyp ipe@ d$ s9 } ag pp g}' a q s . gjp9
g #$ !l
[f3e39F 7aiY 3SM$ 3 9 S9! a3 983�'I} a 3 i f# i? F i s ie i; 2 3 !!? F i'$ p 8 i t i d$:} 8 §i1F6ii
i
;03
m
tj
Rk
— ---------
---------------
4-44-
fP
-4t I "k-0 4*-�)
II
I p
77-
One in 4u
I H 0 11 v
tj
Rk
— ---------
---------------
4-44-
fP
-4t I "k-0 4*-�)
II
I p
77-
iiiiiiiiiii
+9Y !W -ao a P-ff -,Ca° ft.-S 000 aoune parr
9
e Q
F Q
L' 1Q
CA
j
I
T i l l I I 1 i I I
ci
a
IT
• I 1 I
I
IN
� • I v
6
Y
! 4
l I
i
i
":..
OOP30 ROJnJJIRO •9�wH i+�oN
ws n qa ae are ev wv
r
�{
-
0006' Wmr iaMib 4Nl8 0009
,4 J 3 8 . L L 1 H J N Y y
B
'1
_
srl1� ara.JgB� xlsa
NNVNfIOH HiId QI,1YQ
_=
9
e Q
F Q
L' 1Q
CA
j
I
T i l l I I 1 i I I
ci
a
IT
• I 1 I
I
IN
� • I v
6
Y
! 4
l I
i
i
Y �a� i9 !!� �3 f% Z�➢3g 4p i �a 3 �� � � i 5
y9
�e91g it 3 dq $$ 1111 x1$ $ fill h ih's E ` € Ei.
z❑ G G? _ G _ T a [' a ri
€ i8
$
1411
P¢9
F ;�p
e gPp i
i�
91 ,
1 fee . a
TI
a
0
W
W
O
ti
W
d
OY080 •JQ+gOf�J 'OMB i�ad A/
��111 A 1VpI �JWJ M Y6 bY11ON� Y%
j�
ooai pfoa 7oM.S Oapg 0004
- 1 7 8 S I A � H `/
P
Sf(ra aflarf9al Py �lfsAY _
mild
mild !11<ltVa
\ ;
—MOH
Y �a� i9 !!� �3 f% Z�➢3g 4p i �a 3 �� � � i 5
y9
�e91g it 3 dq $$ 1111 x1$ $ fill h ih's E ` € Ei.
z❑ G G? _ G _ T a [' a ri
€ i8
$
1411
P¢9
F ;�p
e gPp i
i�
91 ,
1 fee . a
TI
a
0
W
W
O
ti
W
d
lldW)!U rl� !+0 !a+4f Pad' �!J �W!a4V OOS '� wYw+
-f
OBBdC •!0+!fR!J 'Y!!o& Tadr -
wr. tm wm ow m'an lean se
0006 !JIO/ Y!MS 4a+�9 0009 � 8 d Y
'-
= sFIG� allar1989 �8 �l+slY
�d
gIqt �N �J( �8�
=, 1ll1111IIOH UJ�1lU l!1ll�O
I !
� I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
-f
i
!
i
I !
� I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
-f
yC
Y
a I!>
Q.
Z
Q
W
W
O
Yi
I�I
:
17Ij
i
0
3 i I
i
I I
yC
Y
a I!>
Q.
Z
Q
W
W
O
Yi
I�I
I
4-
L D.
I.
C4
O
44
O
r4
-�w Wig
4-
L D.
I.
C4
O
44
O
r4
a
�rvrofrm •tip ran ewao� •ewu nalUe� )mveao a0e �rw.n ria�
9'
__._.
. ::.
0086 lit (114)
aon me aw
'
ODDSO �fa+0/Rq Y�Np I1u0YaAr -
0006 NPre 7�+iS Ya+fH 0006
ww +mr as wn wn
- 1 I H7 a�{8�{H�Y
sr!19 a!lara4ag -7 XleiY -
,1r� �]]gg��8�
.. .:_.YlVYP11R�H ��Qfl�d U111YQ
S
9'
i
i
i
j
I
I
1
'
i
i
q-
{G:I
0
Z
0
ti
W
h
2
O
m
N