My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:242
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:242
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2006 2:05:17 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:09:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:242
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
348
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Preliminary Tree Report, 3459 Foothill Rd., Pleasanton <br />April 2, 2004 <br /> <br />HortScience, Inc. <br />Page 6 <br /> <br />Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for <br />Preservation <br />Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of <br />construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Survey was the reference <br />point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from construction were evaluated using <br />the conceptual site plan map provided by Lamb Surveying, Inc. (September, 2003). <br /> <br />Two alternative lot layouts are proposed (Fig. 5). In alternative A eight lots extend from a <br />central road along the northern swale. It includes grading of a portion of the site, installation <br />of a road and construction of new homes and related infrastructure. The existing house and <br />vegetation on Lot 7 would remain as is. In alternative B eight lots are located along the <br />southern property line. It includes grading of a portion of the site, installation of a road and <br />construction of new homes and related infrastructure. Both designs retain much of the <br />property in open space, to be dedicated to the City of Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Fig. 5: Site map <br />indicating design <br />alternatives A and B. <br /> <br />Specific impacts from construction could not be estimated for each tree at this time, as site <br />plans are conceptual. However, we were able to assemble a table (Table 3) outlining which <br />trees could be impacted by the two conceptual designs, tree suitability for preservation, <br />heritage status and a preliminary recommendation based on tree condition. <br /> <br />Tabl. ~te.vea's that OPlio~ A (~~~\~~!~O tr?,~ 9p \\1\ n W~I\I. fl\1\~ntially imp~lit a \9l\l19f ~1 <br />trees. Ofthose,9are'hentage trees. ~p\lon B could potentially Impact 11 trees, 90fwtuch <br />are heritage (Table 4). Although the two designs could potentially impact the same number of <br />heritage trees, option A could impact more than twice the number heritage trees with good <br />suitability for preservation as compared to option B. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.