Updated Arborist Report FireHouse Square Belmont, CA

Updated Arborist Report

FireHouse SquareBelmont, CA

Prepared for:Sares Regis

901 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 700San Mateo, CA 94404

Prepared by:HortScience, Inc.

325 Ray St.Pleasanton, CA 94566

March 2018

Updated Arborist Report

FireHouse Square Belmont, CA

Table of Contents

Page Introduction and Overview 1 Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 4 Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 5 Tree Preservation Guidelines 6

List of Tables

Table 1. Condition ratings of trees and frequency of occurrence 3 Table 2. Suitability for preservation 5 Table 3. Preliminary recommendations for trees 6

Attachments Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Maps

Updated Arborist Report, FireHouse Square HortScience, Inc. Sares Regis, March 2018 Page 1

Introduction and Overview Sares Regis is planning to redevelop the FireHouse Square site. The project includes the block bordered by O’Neil Ave., Fifth Ave., Broadway and Civic Lane, as well as the adjacent 1300 El Camino Real property, at the corner of O’Neil Ave. and El Camino Real, in Belmont CA. Currently, the site has two buildings, with one fronting Broadway and the other fronting O’Neil Ave. HortScience, Inc. prepared an Arborist Report for the site in December 2013 and was asked to update that report as part of the development application to the City of Belmont. This report provides the following information:

1. An evaluation of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.

2. An assessment of the development impacts to the trees based on the plans provided by Sares Regis.

3. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development.

4. A Tree Assessment Form and Tree Assessment Map showing the location of trees and tag numbers within the proposed project area.

Assessment Methods Trees were re-assessed on March 30, 2018 and tree #170 was added. The assessment included all on-site trees and any off-site trees with portions of their crowns extending onto the development site measuring 6” and greater in diameter. Tags used ranged from #148-170. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with a numerically coded metal tag and recording its

location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:

5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.

4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.

3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.

2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.

1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

5. Rating the suitability for preservation as "high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree species, and its potential to remain an asset to the site.

High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.

Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.

Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual tree may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas.

DRAFT Arborist Report, FireHouse Square HortScience, Inc. Sares Regis, December 2013 Page 2

Description of Trees Twenty-three (23) trees, representing 12 species, were evaluated (Table 1). Three (3) street trees in front of the 1300 El Camino Real (#167-169) were included in the assessment. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment Form and locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Map (see attachments). Twenty (20) of the trees were concentrated in three areas, including in the southeast corner (along Broadway), in the middle of the site and around the building in the northwest corner. Chinese elm and coast redwood were the most common species encountered, with each represented by four (4) individuals (Table 1, following page). Two of the Chinese elms (#148 and 149) were located along Broadway and the other two were in the middle of the site (#152 and 157). These were semi-mature to mature trees, with diameters from 16” to 33”. In general, they were handsome trees with full, spreading crowns. However, most were in fair condition due to wounds associated with the fungal pathogen anthracnose (Stegophora ulmea). In this case, anthracnose cankers varied from small along branches, to very large on trunks (Photo 1).

The four coast redwoods were clustered in the center of the site (#153-156). Sizes ranged from 17-24”, and three were in fair condition and one (#155) was in poor. There did not appear to be any supplemental irrigation and the trees all had thin to very thin canopies, indicative of drought stress. The three purple-leaf plums (#165-167) included two in the rear yard of the building fronting O’Neil Ave. and a street tree on El Camino Real. The landscape trees were in fair condition, with minor dieback. Street tree #167 was in good condition, with a full crown.

Photo 1: Chinese elms #148 and 149 were located along Broadway. The trees were in fair condition and both had anthracnose cankers. Inset shows close-up of the large canker on the west (back) side of the trunk of Chinese elm #148.


Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees. FireHouse Square, Belmont CA.

Common Name Scientific Name Condition Rating No. of

Poor Fair Good Trees (1-2) (3) (4-5) Blue Atlas cedar Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' - 1 - 1 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - 2 - 2 Honey locust Gleditsia triacanthos - - 2 2 Apple Malus domestica - 1 - 1 Olive Olea europaea - 1 - 1

Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - - 1 1 Canary Island date palm

Phoenix canariensis - - 2 2

Purple-leaf plum Prunus cerasifera 'Atropurpurea'

- 2 1 3

Callery pear Pyrus calleryana 1 - - 1 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 1 3 - 4 Giant sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum 1 - - 1 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia - 3 1 4 Total 3 13 7 23 13% 57% 30% 100%

In addition to the purple leaf plums, trees around the O’Neil Ave. Ave. building included:

Canary Island date palms #159 and 160, both of which were in excellent condition. Date palm #159 was mature at 30” in diameter and #160 was immature, at 22” in diameter.

Italian cypress #160 and 161. Both trees were in good condition but had been planted in close proximity to the building, producing one-sided crowns.

Giant sequoia #163. This was the largest tree assessed on the site, measuring 58” in diameter. It was located between Civic Ln. and the O’Neil Ave. property driveway. It was in poor condition, with extensive dieback throughout the crown. Asphalt in all directions had been displaced by the trees roots.

Callery pear #164 was a young landscape tree located in the rear yard. It was in poor condition, with dieback indicative of the fungal pathogen fireblight.

Chinese pistache #170 waqsa another young landscape tree located in the rear yard. It was in good condition, with fair structure.

The remaining four (4) species were represented by the following:

Two (2) honey locaust street trees located in fron of 1300 El Camino Real (#168 and 169). Both were young and in excellent condition.

Blue atlas cedar #150 was located at the corners of Broadway and 5th Avenue. The tree had multiple atems, measuring from 5-24” in diameter. It was in fair condition, with sunscald along the trunks and and dieback in the upper crown.

Olive #151 and apple #158. Both appeared to be remnant orchard trees, and both were in fair condition.

Overall tree condition at the site was fair, with 13 of the trees in that category. Seven (7) trees were in good condition and 3 were in poor. A lack of adequate irrigation appeared to be the dominant factor in the decline of several of the trees.


The City of Belmont defines a Protected tree as any tree with a diameter of 10” or greater (Ord. #1060, Ch. 25). Based on this definition, 15 of the 23 trees qualified as Protected. Protected trees are identified in the Tree Assessment Form (see attachments). Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to provide greater assurance they survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment, and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:

Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury,

demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees.

Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that

cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely.

Species response

There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. In general, palms, Chinese elms and coast redwoods are relatively tolerant of construction impacts, while Blue Atlas cedar and giant sequoia are intolerant.

Tree age and longevity

Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.

Invasiveness

Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/weedlist.php?#key) lists species identified as being invasive. Mountain View is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Olive and Canary Island date palm have been identified as having limited invasiveness.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment. Table 2 (following page) provides a summary of suitability ratings. Suitability ratings for individual trees are provided in the Tree Assessment Forms (see attachments). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.


Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation. FireHouse Square, Belmont CA.

High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the

potential for longevity at the site. Three (3) trees were highly suitable for preservation, including two (2) Canary Island date palms and purple-leaf plum #167.

Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Thirteen (13) trees were of moderate suitability for preservation, including 3 Chinese elms, 2 purple-leaf plums, 2 Italian cypress, 2 honey locusts, Blue Atlas cedar #150, olive #151, coast redwood #153, and Chinese pistache #170.

Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Seven (7) trees had low suitability for preservation, including 3 coast redwoods, Chinese elm #148, apple #158, giant sequoia #163 and callery pear #164.

Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree health and condition. I referred to the Demolition (C2), Grading and Drainage (C4) and Utility (C5) Plans, prepared by BKF Engineers (dated 8.21.2017) and the Landscpae Plan prepared by The Guzzardo Partnership (dated 8.21.2017) to estimate the impacts to trees from the proposed changes. The current plan proposes to construct a multi-story residential development, with a combination of 66 apartments and 15 townhomes in 2 buildings, with parking beneath. Garage access would be off of Civic Lane. The apartment building would be L-shaped fronting O’Neil and 5th Ave. and the townhome building would front 5th Avenue. A central courtyard would be located between the buildings. Based on my evaluation of the current plans, removal would be required for all 20 on-site trees and 2 of the street trees on El Camino Real, 12 of which qualified as Protected. Table 3, following page, provides the recommended action for each tree, reason for removal, and their Protected status. Street tree #167 on El Camino Real will be preserved and Canary Island date palms #159 and 160 are currently proposed for transplanting into the new landscaping. All three of these trees qualified as Protected. Recommendations for preservation are predicated on adherence to the Tree Preservation Guidelines (following page).


Table 3. Preliminary recommendations for trees. FireHouse Square, Belmont CA.

Tree No.

Species Trunk Diameter (in.)

Protected? Recommended action

148 Chinese elm 16 Yes Remove; within development. 149 Chinese elm 22 Yes Remove; within development. 150 Blue Atlas cedar 24,13,12,11,5 Yes Remove; within development. 151 Olive 5,3,1 No Remove; within development. 152 Chinese elm 28 Yes Remove; within development. 153 Coast redwood 23 Yes Remove; within development. 154 Coast redwood 22 Yes Remove; within development. 155 Coast redwood 17 Yes Remove; within development. 156 Coast redwood 21 Yes Remove; within development. 157 Chinese elm 33 Yes Remove; within development. 158 Apple 6 No Remove; within development. 159 Canary Island palm 38 Yes Transplant 160 Canary Island palm 22 Yes Transplant 161 Italian cypress 8,5 Yes Remove; within development. 162 Italian cypress 9 Yes Remove; within development. 163 Giant sequoia 58 Yes Remove; within development. 164 Callery pear 8 No Remove; within development. 165 Purple-leaf plum 7 No Remove; within development. 166 Purple-leaf plum 6 No Remove; within development. 167 Purple-leaf plum 6,6,6,5,5,4,4,2 Yes Preserve; street tree. 168 Honey locust 8 No Remove for landscape

upgrade 169 Honey locust 9 No Remove for landscape

upgrade 170 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove; within development.

Tree Preservation Guidelines The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance of tree health and beauty for many years. Impacts can be minimized by coordinating any construction activities inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Design recommendations

1. Any plan affecting trees should be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans and demolition plans.

2. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be established around street tree #167. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. The TPZ shall be at the back of sidewalk for street tree #167.


3. If Canary Island date palms #159 and 160 are to be transplanted, hire a contractor familiar with and experienced in the transplanting of large palms. Poor sanitation prior to pruning and a lack of experience in transplanting procedures have the potential to compromise palm health. Transplant guidelines can be provided if requested.

4. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included on all plans.

5. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury.

6. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the

TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Pre-construction treatments and recommendations

1. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.

2. Fence trees to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to

demolition, grubbing, or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent as approved by the City of Belmont. Fences are to remain until all construction is completed. If fencing of street tree #167 is not an option, trunk shall be temporarily wrapped with straw wattles or 2x4’s and orange snow fencing to a height of 8’ (or to the first major branch, whichever is higher) to provide protection against incidental contact during construction.

3. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide construction clearance. All

pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker. Pruning shall adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices -- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture.

4. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION

ZONE shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from outside the TREE

PROTECTION ZONE. The consultant shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity.

Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, all contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be

preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.

2. Fences and/or trunk wrappings are to remain until all site work has been completed. Protection measures may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.

3. Any excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required.


4. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consultant.

5. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied.

6. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist and not by construction personnel.

Maintenance of impacted trees Trees preserved at the FireHouse Square site may experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. As trees age, the likelihood of branches or entire trees failing will increase. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. HortScience, Inc.

John Leffingwell Board Certified Master Arborist WE-3966B Registered Consulting Arborist #442 Attached: Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Maps

TREE SPECIES SIZE Protected ? CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTSNo. DIAMETER 1=POOR FOR

(in inches) 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION

148 Chinese elm 16 Yes 3 Low Topped at 20' for overhead utilities; large anthracnose canker at base W.

149 Chinese elm 22 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 15'; trunk wound S.; root pruned/basal decay SE.

150 Blue Atlas cedar 24,13,12,11,5 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 4'; sunscald & dieback in upper crown S.

151 Olive 5,3,1 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 2'; trunk wounds; dieback.

152 Chinese elm 29 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant at 8'; large trunk wounds on W. upright at 15' & 20'; fair structure w/ heavy lateral N.

153 Coast redwood 24 Yes 3 Moderate Good form and structure; very thin canopy.

154 Coast redwood 23 Yes 3 Low One sided S.; very thin canopy. 155 Coast redwood 17 Yes 2 Low Lost top; very thin canopy. 156 Coast redwood 22 Yes 3 Low Lost top; thin canopy. 157 Chinese elm 33 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6'; anthracnose

cankers throughout tree; heavy laterals. 158 Apple 6 No 3 Low Leans N. from base. 159 Canary Island date palm 38 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; 30' of brown 160 Canary Island date palm 44 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; 6' of brown trunk.

161 Italian cypress 8,5 Yes 4 Moderate Growing close to bldg.; one sided W. 162 Italian cypress 9 Yes 4 Moderate Growing close to bldg.; one sided NW. 163 Giant sequoia 58 Yes 2 Low Upright form; extensive dieback; displacing

infrastructure.

Tree Assessment Firehouse SquareBelmont, CaliforniaMarch 2018

Page 1

TREE SPECIES SIZE Protected ? CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTSNo. DIAMETER 1=POOR FOR

(in inches) 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION

Tree Assessment Firehouse SquareBelmont, CaliforniaMarch 2018

164 Callery pear 8 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 5'; fireblight dieback.

165 Purple-leaf plum 7 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5'; twig dieback. 166 Purple-leaf plum 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5'; twig dieback. 167 Purple-leaf plum 6,6,6,5,5,4,4,2 Yes 4 High Street tree, no tag; multiple attachments at

3'; good form; oak moth. 168 Honey locust 9 No 3 Moderate Street tree, no tag; multiple attachments at

6'; trunk wounds W.; topped at 12'.169 Honey locust 9 No 3 Moderate Street tree, no tag; multiple attachments at

6'; topped at 12'.170 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 Moderate Codominant at 6'; fair form and structure.

Page 2

325 Ray Street Pleasanton, California 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596

Tree Assessment Map

FireHouse Square Belmont, CA

Prepared for: Sares Regis Group San Mateo CA

November 2013

No Scale

Notes

Base map provided by: Brian Kangas Foulk Consulting Engineers

Numbered tree locations are approximate.

159

160161162

163

164

165166

157

148

149

150151 156155

152

153 154158

167168 169

Trees #167-169 were street trees in front of 1300 El Camino Real

170

Updated Arborist Report FireHouse Square Belmont, CA

Documents

Transcript of Updated Arborist Report FireHouse Square Belmont, CA