HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Arborist Report
749 West El Camino Real
PREPARED FOR
Greystar
450 Sansome Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94105
PREPARED BY:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
April 22, 2021
Revised April 2022
& September 2022
Attachment 9
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Arborist Report
749 W El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Tree Assessment Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
City of Mountain View Tree Protection Ordinance 4
Suitability for Preservation 5
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations 6
Tree Preservation Guidelines 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation 6
Exhibits
Tree Inventory Map
Tree Assessment
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 1
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Arborist Report
749 W El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA
Introduction and Overview
Greystar is in the early stages of developing the site located at 749 W. El Camino Real in Mountain View, CA. The site currently contains an existing bank and associated parking areas.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting was asked to prepare an Arborist Report as required by City of Mountain View Municipal Code 4.11.
This report was updated on September 29, 2022 in response to city comments and based on a review of the most recent landscape plans prepared by TGP and dated 10/7/2022.
This report provides the following information:
1. Assessment of the health and structure of the trees within and adjacent to the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground.
2. Evaluation of the impacts to trees based on development plans.
3. Identification of trees to be removed and preserved as a result of the project.
4. Recommendations for protection of adjacent off-site trees during construction.
Tree Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on March 11, 2021. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree species;
2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map; trees were numbered #30 - 118
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; for off-site trees diameters were estimated.
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5 based on a visual inspection from the ground:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptom 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, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
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 that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 2
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Tree 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 may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas.
Description of Trees
Eighty-nine (89) trees representing 14 species were evaluated (Table 1). For all species combined, trees were in poor (22%), fair (47%), and good (30%) condition. Fifteen (15) street trees were included in the assessment. Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment, and approximate locations are plotted on the Tree Assessment Plan (see Exhibits).
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees 749 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total
Poor
(1-2)
Fair
(3)
Good
(4-5)
Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 1 - - 1
Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - - 2 2
Evergreen ash Fraxinus uhdei 3 3 - 6
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum 4 2 - 6
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 2 6 7 15
Southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora - 11 - 11
Olive Olea europaea 1 3 3 7
Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - 1 - 1
Evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 2 6 1 9
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1 2 1 4
Red oak Quercus rubra 1 - 2 3
California pepper Schinus molle - 2 1 3
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 4 - 10 14
Siberian elm Ulmus pumila 1 6 - 7
Total 20 42 27 89
Sweetgum was the most frequent species, with 15 trees assessed. All of the sweetgums were located within or near the parking lot on the eastern portion of the property; three (#94 – 96) were street trees. Seven of the sweetgums were in good condition, six were in fair condition, and two were in poor condition. The trees ranged from 8 to 17 inches in diameter. Tree #91 was mostly dead. The three street trees may not be removed without a permit; furthermore, street trees #95 and #96 had Heritage status due to their size.
Coast redwood was the second most populous species with 14 trees assessed (4 off site). The 10 on site redwoods were in good condition (Photo 1) while the four off-site coast redwoods were in poor condition. The on-site coast redwoods (#32 – 41) varied in diameter from 21 to 34 inches Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 3
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
and were planted in a row between the eastern parking lot and neighboring properties. The off- site coast redwoods (#99 – 102) were between 11 and 21 inches in diameter. The coast redwoods all had typical form and structure for the species. All 14 coast redwoods had Heritage status by virtue of their size and species.
Eleven (11) southern magnolias were assessed, all of which were in fair condition. Seven were street trees planted between the property and the sidewalk. The southern magnolias were all planted between the parking area and Victor Way, located South of the property. Twig dieback and/or slightly thin crowns were present on all southern magnolias. They varied in size from 8 to 15 inches in diameter. Only one (#58) was Heritage by virtue of its trunk diameter.
Nine evergreen pears were assessed. They ranged in diameter from 5 to 11 inches. Two were in poor condition, six were in fair condition, and one was in good condition. Tree #69 had previously been topped.
There were seven olives present. One (#64) was in poor condition, three were in fair condition, and three were in good condition (Photo 2). Three were multi-stemmed trees with stem diameters between 3 and 12 inches. The four single-trunk trees had 11 or 10-inch trunk diameters. Three were Heritage due to their trunk diameter below the multiple trunk attachment point.
Seven Siberian elms were assessed. One (#109) was in poor condition while the rest were in fair condition. They had trunk diameters between 14 and 32 inches. Trees #103, 105, 106, 108, and 109 were Heritage due to their trunk diameters.
Six evergreen ash were assessed (#79 – 84). Three were in fair condition and three were in poor condition. They ranged in diameter from 8 to 12 inches and none had Heritage status.
Six glossy privets were assessed. They had trunk diameters between 6 and 21 inches. Four were in poor condition and two were in fair condition. Two (#75 and 78) were street trees and thus protected. Street tree #75 was mostly dead while street tree #78 was in decline. One on-site tree, #77, was Heritage due to its trunk diameter.
Four coast live oaks were assessed. One was in poor condition, two were in fair condition, and one was in good condition. Their trunks measured between 17 and 25 inches in diameter. All oaks in Mountain View with a diameter of 4 inches or greater are considered Heritage, therefore all coast live oaks were Heritage.
Photo 1 (left):
Coast redwoods
#37-42 along the
eastern parking
lot were in good
condition.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 4
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Three red oaks were assessed, all of which were street trees and Heritage. Trees #98 and 114 were in good condition while tree #115 was in poor condition. Tree #115 was suppressed by tree #111.
Three California peppers were assessed. Two were in fair condition and one (#85) was in good condition. Tree #44 was a multi-stemmed tree with 2 – 4 inch stems sprouting from an old trunk.
Trees #85 and 92 had 21-inch trunk diameters, making them Heritage trees.
Two Italian cypresses were assessed. Both were in good condition, had 13 inch diameters, and had ivy-covered bases.
One camphor was assessed. It had a 14-inch diameter trunk and was in poor condition. Twig and branch dieback were indicative of the tree being in decline.
One Chinese pistache was assessed. It had a 12-inch diameter trunk and was in fair condition. It was a street tree and thus protected.
City of Mountain View Tree Protection Ordinance
The City of Mountain View Ordinance No. 4.11 (3/1/11) Chapter 32, Article II, Protection of Urban Forest designates oaks, redwoods, and cedars 4” and greater in trunk diameter and any species 15” and greater in trunk diameter Heritage. By this definition, 30 of the on-site trees were Heritage Trees. The City also protects street trees. Fifteen (15) street trees, five of which were Heritage trees, were located along Victor Way, Castro St., El Camino Real, and Lane Ave. Designations for individual trees are provided in the Tree Assessment. No Street Trees or Heritage trees may be removed without a permit.
Photo 2 (top): Olive #72 was in good
condition.
Photo 3 (right): Coast live oak #111 on El
Camino Real was in good condition.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 5
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
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 make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment, and perform well in the landscape.
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. For example, southern magnolias along Victor Way were in fair condition but had low vigor and would not survive if they experienced significant root injury.
• 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. Coast live oak and coast redwood are tolerant of root loss while Siberian elm and sweetgum are less tolerant.
• 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.
• Species 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/plants/inventory/ lists species identified as being invasive. Mountain View is part of the Central West Floristic Province. California pepper and olive are considered invasive on the “limited” level.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment in Exhibits, and Table 2). 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.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 6
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation
749 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA
High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Thirteen (13) of the trees had high suitability for preservation.
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.
Forty-nine (49) trees had moderate suitability for preservation.
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. Twenty-seven (27) of the trees had low suitability for preservation.
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 was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from construction were evaluated using the Tree Disposition Plan sheet l-8.0 prepared by Studio T Square dated October 7, 2022.
This report was updated on September 29, 2022 as a part of the final development application to the City of Mountain View. Plans depict trees proposed for removal based on both the plans and comments from the City (see Table 3 Disposition Assessment for Trees). Plans depicted the proposed work that would construct mixed-use residential buildings with below-grade parking and vehicle circulation.
Excavation for underground parking that will occur across much of the site leaves little opportunity for tree preservation. Coast redwoods, olives, and other interior trees will need to be removed. It is the intent to preserve the row of coast redwoods (#35-41) and sweetgums #42 and 43.
Coast redwoods #36-41 and sweetgums #42 and 43 preservation:
Coast redwoods #36-41 can be preserved with meticulous adherence to the tree preservation guidelines. The walkway is planned between 5 to 8 feet away from the trunks of the trees the existing pavement is around the same distance from the trunks (Sheet L-1 screenshot 1 below).
To enable preservation, I recommend reducing the extent of the excavation required for the adjacent concrete walkway. Permeable pavers will be used to enhance water flow in the root zone.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 7
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
The in-ground stormwater treatment planter is located where the existing parking lot is located.
Root loss in this area is expected to be minimal. Excavation within the tree protection zone should be done by hand and should seek to preserve roots 2-inches in diameter and larger. Once roots are severed, they should be covered. The trees should be irrigated regularly with potable water before, during, and after construction to help the trees tolerate and recover from construction impacts better. Tree protection fencing should also be installed between the trees and the edge of the proposed work area. Fencing should remain in place for the duration of the project.
Based on our review of the plans, nine trees (seven heritage) can be preserved. The remaining 80 trees (28 heritage and 52 non-heritage) see Table 3.
Olives #46, 65, 66, and 72 are candidates for transplant. This group of olives was in good (#65, 66, and 72) and fair (#46) condition. However, transplanting is a costly procedure, and the resulting root loss and transplant shock may be greater than the tree’s tolerance threshold. If the trees cannot immediately be transplanted after extraction and must be stored and maintained during the course of re-development, then the chance of successful transplant plummets.
In addition, adequately sized root balls must be extracted for the olives to enable successful transplant. It will be difficult to extract a large enough root ball based on the growing conditions at the site. As a general guideline, root ball size should be at least 10 feet for each inch of trunk diameter for successful transplant. Using this guideline, 10 ft. for tree #46 would be necessary; 12 ft. for #65; 9 ft. for tree #66; and 9 ft. for #70. A much larger area than is available.
Preservation of trees is predicated on following the Tree Preservation Guidelines on page 12.
Tree transplant potential:
I do not recommend transplanting the olive trees in good condition (#65, 66, and 72). From my review, the current design presents limited opportunity to accommodate relocated trees, unless the landscape plans are revised.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 8
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Table 3. Disposition Assessment for Trees
749 W El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA
Tag # Species Diameter Condition Suitability Heritage? Disposition Disposition comments
30 Sweetgum 8 3 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 31 Sweetgum 8 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 32 Coast redwood 28 5 High Yes Remove Within building footprint 33 Coast redwood 24 5 High Yes Remove Within building footprint 34 Coast redwood 21 5 High Yes Remove Within building footprint 35 Coast redwood 22 4 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 36 Coast redwood 27 5 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 37 Coast redwood 27 5 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 38 Coast redwood 26 5 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 39 Coast redwood 26 5 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 40 Coast redwood 31 5 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 41 Coast redwood 34 5 High Yes Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 42 Sweetgum 10 4 Moderate No Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 43 Sweetgum 12 4 Moderate No Preserve Protected at existing curb line. 44 California pepper 4,4,4,4,4,3,3,3,2,2,2,2,2 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 45 Sweetgum 14 4 Moderate No Remove Insufficient growing space in narrow planter; new building will be too
close to tree's location
46 Olive 10 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
47 Evergreen pear 11 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
48 Evergreen pear 9 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
49 Evergreen pear 11 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
50 Evergreen pear 8 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
51 Southern magnolia 9 3 Moderate No Remove Driveway from Victor Wy.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 9
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
52 Southern magnolia 14 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
53 Southern magnolia 12 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
54 Southern magnolia 9 3 Moderate No Remove Driveway from Victor Wy. 55 Southern magnolia 8 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
56 Southern magnolia 12 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
57 Southern magnolia 8 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
58 Southern magnolia 15 3 Moderate Yes Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
59 Southern magnolia 9 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
60 Southern magnolia 10 3 Low No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
61 Southern magnolia 14 3 Low No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
62 Olive 11 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
63 Olive 11 3 Moderate No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
64 Olive 11 2 Low No Remove Existing planter will be removed, sidewalk will be reconfigured
65 Olive 12,10 4 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint; possible transplant candidate
66 Olive 9,7,7,6 4 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint; possible transplant candidate
67 Evergreen pear 10 4 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 68 Evergreen pear 8 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 69 Evergreen pear 5 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 70 Evergreen pear 8 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 71 Evergreen pear 8 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 72 Olive 9,9,7,6,3 4 High Yes Remove Within building footprint; possible transplant candidate
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 10
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
73 Glossy privet 10 2 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 74 Glossy privet 9 2 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 75 Glossy privet 6 1 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 76 Glossy privet 13 3 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 77 Glossy privet 21 3 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation 78 Glossy privet 10 2 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 79 Evergreen ash 10 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 80 Evergreen ash 12 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 81 Evergreen ash 8 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 82 Evergreen ash 8 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 83 Evergreen ash 10 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 84 Evergreen ash 8 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 85 California pepper 21 4 Moderate Yes Remove Planter will be replaced with paving 86 Sweetgum 12 4 Moderate No Remove Planter will be replaced with paving 87 Sweetgum 12 4 Moderate No Remove Planter will be replaced with paving 88 Sweetgum 10 4 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 89 Sweetgum 9 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 90 Sweetgum 9 4 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 91 Sweetgum 9 1 Low No Remove Within building footprint 92 California pepper 21 3 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint 93 Sweetgum 9 2 Low No Remove Within building footprint 94 Sweetgum 10 3 Low No Remove Street tree planter will be replaced with paving
95 Sweetgum 17 3 Moderate Yes Remove Street tree planter will be removed and sidewalk will be reconfigured
96 Sweetgum 15 3 Moderate Yes Remove Street tree planter will be removed and sidewalk will be reconfigured
97 Chinese pistache 12 3 Moderate No Remove Street tree planter will be removed and sidewalk will be reconfigured
98 Red oak 27 4 High Yes Remove Within driveway from El Camino Real
99 Coast redwood 21 2 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation; within new parking lot
100 Coast redwood 11 2 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation; within new parking lot
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 11
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
101 Coast redwood 16 2 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation; within new parking lot
102 Coast redwood 15 2 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation; within new parking lot
103 Siberian elm 32 est. 3 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint 104 Siberian elm 14 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 105 Siberian elm 18 3 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint 106 Siberian elm 21 3 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint 107 Siberian elm 14 3 Moderate No Remove Within building footprint 108 Siberian elm 27 3 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint 109 Siberian elm 19 2 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation; within building footprint
110 Camphor 14 2 Low No Remove Low suitability for preservation 111 Coast live oak 25 4 High Yes Remove Within building footprint 112 Coast live oak 17 3 Moderate Yes Remove Within building footprint 113 Coast live oak 17 2 Low Yes Remove Within building footprint; low suitability for preservation
114 Red oak 25 4 Moderate Yes Remove Street tree outside of work area 115 Red oak 10 2 Low Yes Remove Low suitability for preservation 116 Italian cypress 13 4 Moderate No Remove Driveway from Lane Av. 117 Italian cypress 13 4 Moderate No Remove Driveway from Lane Av. 118 Coast live oak 18 3 Moderate Yes Remove Located where new walkway is planned
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 12
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
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. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather than an asset.
The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and grading, the care with which demolition is undertaken, and the construction methods. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts.
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.
Tree Protection Zone
1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be the dripline of each tree. a. Fence all trees to be retained 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.
b. No grading, excavation, construction or storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
c. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
Design recommendations
1. All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading plans, drainage plans, utility plans, and landscape and irrigation plans.
2. TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall be the dripline of each tree. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
3. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching severs roots larger than 1” in diameter will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
4. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist, which include specifications for tree protection during demolition and construction, should be included on all plans.
5. Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
6. Do not lime the subsoil within 50’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots.
7. Ensure adequate but not excessive water is supplied to trees; in most cases occasional irrigation will be required. Avoid directing runoff toward trees.
Pre-demolition and pre-construction treatments and recommendations
1. The demolition and construction superintendents shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 13
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
2. Fence all trees to be retained 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.
3. Apply and maintain 4-6” wood chip mulch within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Keep the mulch 2’ from the base of tree trunks.
4. Fences are to remain until all grading and construction is completed. Where demolition must occur close to trees, such as removing curb and pavement, install trunk protection devices such as winding silt sock wattle around trunks or stacking hay bales around tree trunks.
5. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.
Recommendations for tree protection during construction
1. Any approved grading, construction, demolition or other work within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manner that will prevent damage to trees to be preserved.
3. Tree protection devices are to remain until all site work has been completed within the work area. Fences or other protection devices may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Consulting Arborist.
4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside TREE PROTECTION ZONE at all times.
5. Roots should be cut with a saw to provide a flat and smooth cut. If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Consulting Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment.
6. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist (every 3 to 6 weeks is typical). Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30”.
7. 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.
8. No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE.
9. 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
Preserved trees will 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.
Inspect trees annually and following major storms to identify conditions requiring treatment to manage risk associated with tree failure.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 14
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 15
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases.
Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.
If you have any questions about my observations or recommendations, please contact me.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
Prepared by:
Deanne Ecklund
Registered Consulting Arborist #647
Revised by:
Darya Barar, Managing Consulting Urban Forester
ISA Certified Arborist No. WE-6757A
Registered Consulting Arborist #693
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Arborist Report, 749 W El Camino Real Page 16
April 22, 2021 REV Sept. 2022
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company
Exhibits
Tree Inventory Map
Tree Assessment
Tree Inventory Map
Chase Bank
749 West El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA 94040
Prepared for:
Greystar
450 Sansome Street
Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
March 2021
No Scale
Notes:
Base map provided by:
Google Maps
Numbered tree locations are approximate
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, California 94566
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
Tree Inventory Map
Chase Bank
749 West El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA 94040
Prepared for:
Greystar
450 Sansome Street
Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
March 2021
No Scale
Notes:
Base map provided by:
Google Maps
Numbered tree locations are approximate
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, California 94566
Phone 925.484.0211
Fax 925.484.0596
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
30 Sweetgum 8 No 3 Low Trunk wound with decay from base to 4.5’; small crown. 31 Sweetgum 8 No 3 Moderate Asymmetrical crown north; crowded by adjacent redwood. 32 Coast redwood 28 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; 6’ from fence. 33 Coast redwood 24 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; slightly crowded; 6’ from fence.
34 Coast redwood 21 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; slightly crowded; 6’ from fence.
35 Coast redwood 22 Yes 4 High Good form and structure; crowded by adjacent trees; slightly chlorotic; 4’ from fence.
36 Coast redwood 27 Yes 5 High 9’ from fence.
37 Coast redwood 27 Yes 5 High 9’ from fence and 9’ from curb. 38 Coast redwood 26 Yes 5 High 9’ from fence and 9’ from curb. 39 Coast redwood 26 Yes 5 High 8’ from fence 10’ from curb. 40 Coast redwood 31 Yes 5 High 8’ from fence 10’ from curb. 41 Coast redwood 34 Yes 5 High 6’ from fence and 10.5’ from curb. 42 Sweetgum 10 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 8’; good form; slightly crowded. 43 Sweetgum 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks in upper crown; fair form and structure. 44 California pepper 4,4,4,4,4,3
,3,3,2,2,2,
2,2
No 3 Low Multiple attachments at base; sprouted from old trunk; dense crown.
45 Sweetgum 14 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 8’ and 15’; good form; in narrow planter between wall and curb; displacing asphalt and curb.
46 Olive 10 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 9’; fair form and structure. 47 Evergreen pear 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7’; typical form and structure; 5’ from wall. 48 Evergreen pear 9 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7’; typical form and structure; 4’ from wall. 49 Evergreen pear 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7’; bowed trunk; small crown. 50 Evergreen pear 8 No 3 Moderate Engulfed in ivy; trunk, base not visible. 51 Southern magnolia 9 No 3 Moderate Slightly thin crown; circling root; surface roots; in 3.5’ planter.
Tree Assessment
749 W. El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA
March 2021
1 of 4
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
749 W. El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA
March 2021
52 Southern magnolia 14 No 3 Moderate Street tree; twig dieback; crowded form; in planter between sidewalk and wall
53 Southern magnolia 12 No 3 Moderate Street tree; twig dieback; crowded form; in planter between sidewalk and wall
54 Southern magnolia 9 No 3 Moderate Street tree; twig dieback; crowded form; in planter between sidewalk and wall
55 Southern magnolia 8 No 3 Moderate Slightly thin crown; twig dieback; in 3.5’ planter. 56 Southern magnolia 12 No 3 Moderate Slightly thin crown; twig dieback; in 3.5’ planter. 57 Southern magnolia 8 No 3 Moderate Street tree; twig dieback; crowded form; in plater between sidewalk and wall
58 Southern magnolia 15 Yes 3 Moderate Street tree; minor twig dieback; crowded form; in planter between sidewalk and wall; root mass cut for sidewalk repair.
59 Southern magnolia 9 No 3 Moderate Street tree; twig dieback; crowded form; in plater between sidewalk and wall
60 Southern magnolia 10 No 3 Low Slightly thin crown; twig dieback; in 3.5’ planter. 61 Southern magnolia 14 No 3 Low Street tree; thin crown; twig dieback; in planter between sidewalk and wall.
62 Olive 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6’; fair form and structure; trunk sprouts. 63 Olive 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5’; fair form and structure; slightly thin crown.
64 Olive 11 No 2 Low Thin crown; twig dieback; fair form and structure. 65 Olive 12,10 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1’; fair form and structure; dense crown. 66 Olive 9,7,7,6 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 1’; fair form and structure; dense crown. 67 Evergreen pear 10 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6’; typical form and structure; good form; in 4x4 cutout.
68 Evergreen pear 8 No 2 Low Small, thin crown; in 4x4 planter. 69 Evergreen pear 5 No 2 Low Previously topped; very small crown. 70 Evergreen pear 8 No 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; small crown. 71 Evergreen pear 8 No 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; small crown; trunk wound. 72 Olive 9,9,7,6,3 Yes 4 High Multiple attachments at 2’; spreading form; dense crown. 2 of 4
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
749 W. El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA
March 2021
73 Glossy privet 10 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 5’; thinning crown; decay at base of limb; in 5’ planting strip behind sidewalk.
74 Glossy privet 9 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 6’; thin crown; bark separating from trunk. 75 Glossy privet 6 No 1 Low Street tree; mostly dead.
76 Glossy privet 13 No 3 Low Multiple attachments at 5’; slightly thin crown. 77 Glossy privet 21 Yes 3 Low Multiple attachments at 6’; slightly thin crown. 78 Glossy privet 10 No 2 Low Street tree; in decline.
79 Evergreen ash 10 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 6’; typical form and structure; thin crown. 80 Evergreen ash 12 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 8’; fair form and structure. 81 Evergreen ash 8 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7’; small crown; minor twig dieback. 82 Evergreen ash 8 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 6’; twig and branch dieback. 83 Evergreen ash 10 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7’; typical form and structure. 84 Evergreen ash 8 No 2 Low Trunk leans east; typical form and structure. 85 California pepper 21 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 8’; dense crown; typical form and structure. 86 Sweetgum 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 10’; good form. 87 Sweetgum 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 10’; fair form and structure. 88 Sweetgum 10 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 9’; fair form and structure. 89 Sweetgum 9 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; slightly thin crown. 90 Sweetgum 9 No 4 Moderate Good form; fair structure.
91 Sweetgum 9 No 1 Low Mostly dead.
92 California pepper 21 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6’ and 10’; dense crown; in planter. 93 Sweetgum 9 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; thin crown. 94 Sweetgum 10 No 3 Low Street tree; narrow form; in 3.5’ planter; displacing sidewalk. 95 Sweetgum 17 Yes 3 Moderate Street tree; codominant trunks at 6’; dense crown; surface roots. 96 Sweetgum 15 Yes 3 Moderate Street tree; codominant trunks at 6’; fair form and structure; lifting sidewalk.
97 Chinese pistache 12 No 3 Moderate Street tree; fair form and structure; history of branch failure. 3 of 4
Tree No. Species Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
Protected
Tree?
Condition
1=poor
5=excellent
Suitability for
Preservation
Comments
Tree Assessment
749 W. El Camino Real
Mountain View, CA
March 2021
98 Red oak 27 Yes 4 High Street tree; Multiple attachments at 6’; spreading form; sidewalk repaired.
99 Coast redwood 21 Yes 2 Low Fair form and structure; no tag; thin crown; 2’ from pl. 100 Coast redwood 11 Yes 2 Low Fair form and structure; no tag; thin crown; 2’ from pl. 101 Coast redwood 16 Yes 2 Low Fair form and structure; no tag; thin crown; 2’ from pl. 102 Coast redwood 15 Yes 2 Low Fair form and structure; no tag; thin crown; 2’ from pl. 103 Siberian elm 32 est. Yes 3 Moderate No access; multiple trunks at 4’; fair form and structure. 104 Siberian elm 14 No 3 Moderate No access; fair form and structure. 105 Siberian elm 18 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 20’; fair form and structure 106 Siberian elm 21 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5’; fair form and structure; narrow form. 107 Siberian elm 14 No 3 Moderate Trunk leans east; narrow form. 108 Siberian elm 27 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6’; fair form and structure. 109 Siberian elm 19 Yes 2 Low Codominant trunks trunk removed with cavity; base outside dripline; poor form.
110 Camphor 13.5 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 5’; twig and branch dieback; in decline. 111 Coast live oak 25 Yes 4 High Multiple attachments at 10’; good form; dense crown; potential curb and buildin
g demo impacts.
112 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; slightly thin crown; asymmetrical form. 113 Coast live oak 17 Yes 2 Low Poor form and structure; thin crown. 114 Red oak 25 Yes 4 Moderate Mature form; several upright leaders topped; sidewalk cutout. 115 Red oak 10 Yes 2 Low Street tree; poor form and structure; suppressed by #111 116 Italian cypress 13 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; base covered in ivy. 117 Italian cypress 13 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; base covered in ivy. 118 Coast live oak 18 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 8’; thin crown; base covered in ivy. 4 of 4