|
Arborist Report. 4400 Black Ave. Pleasanton. Page 6
<br />The True Life Companies May 2023
<br />
<br />
<br /> HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
<br />
<br />
<br />Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition,
<br />and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). We consider trees with
<br />high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend
<br />retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be
<br />present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity
<br />of proposed site changes.
<br />
<br />Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation
<br />4400 Black Ave. Pleasanton, CA
<br />
<br />
<br /> High Trees in this category had good health and structural stability that have the
<br />potential for longevity at the site. Five (5) trees had high suitability for
<br />preservation: valley oaks #54, 55, and 61, and coast redwoods #30 and 31.
<br />
<br />
<br /> Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be
<br />abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense
<br />management and monitoring and may have shorter lifespans than those in
<br />the “high” category. Seven (7) trees had moderate suitability for
<br />preservation: glossy privets #44 and 46, sweetgums #17 and 20, evergreen
<br />pear #53, hackberry #57, and southern magnolia #14.
<br />
<br />
<br /> Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in
<br />structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected
<br />to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may
<br />possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or
<br />be unsuited for use areas. Fifty-one (51) trees had low suitability for
<br />preservation: 17 glossy privets, 11 sweetgums, Callery pears #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
<br />and 7; evergreen pears #8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 25, and 26; plums #35, 36, 37, and
<br />39; London planes #59 and 60; evergreen ash #28, sawleaf zelkova #12, and
<br />southern magnolia #27.
<br />
<br />
<br />Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations
<br />Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of
<br />construction activities and the quality and health of trees. Potential impacts to trees from
<br />development include root loss, surface soil compaction, damage to trunks and branches, grade
<br />changes, and alteration of surface and sub-surface drainage patterns. How much construction
<br />impact a tree can tolerate depends on age, species tolerance, health, structure, and previous
<br />exposure to wind and sun as well as treatment during construction.
<br />
<br />The Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree health, condition, and suitability for
<br />preservation. I used the Site Plan (TTLC, March 24, 2023), to determine the project area and
<br />evaluate impacts to trees. This report is preliminary because no site grading, utility, or other
<br />construction plans were reviewed.
<br />
<br />The project plans show the entire property being demolished and redeveloped. Based on my
<br />review of the plans, I recommend removal of all 41 on-site trees and preservation of the 22 off-
<br />site trees. On-site trees were in areas planned for demolition and construction. Preservation of
<br />any of these trees would require substantial redesign of the proposed project.
<br />
|