Arborist Report
Vintage Farm
Napa, CA
Prepared for:
Davidon Homes
1600 S. Main St., Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-5394
Prepared by:
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
April 2021
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report
Vintage Farm
Napa, CA
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Overview 1
Survey Methods 1
Description of Trees 2
Suitability for Preservation 4
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action 6
Tree Preservation Guidelines 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence for trees 2 Table 2. Suitability for preservation 6
Table 3. Trees recommended for removal 7
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Forms
Tree Assessment M
aps
ATTACHMENT 6
Introduction and Overview
Davidon Homes is planning to redevelop the Vintage Farm site in Napa, California. The site is the home of an educational farm, with a combination of portables, sheds, livestock and animal pens, an orchard and open space on the south and east sides of the lot. The proposed development would construct 53 residential lots, with Sierra Ave. being extended to Villa Ln. on the north side of the site. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (HBC), Divisions of the F. A. Bartlett Tree expert Co., was asked to prepare an Arborist Report for the site for review by the City of Napa.
This report provides the following information:
1. An assessment of all trees with a trunk diameter of 4” or greater (measured 54” above grade) within the proposed project area.
2. An evaluation of the health of each tree based on a ground inspection of external conditions.
3. An assessment of the impacts of c onstructing the proposed project on the trees.
4. Recommendations for tree preservation and removal.
5. Guidelines for tree preservation dur ing the design and construction phases of development.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on March 24, 2021. The survey included all trees 4” and greater in diameter, per Chapter 12.45, Ordinance #02003-4. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map;
3. Measuring the trunk diamet er 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. 0 – Dead.
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 struct ural 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: 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.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 2
Description of Trees
Fifty (50) trees, representing 16 species, were evaluated (Table 1). Descriptions of each tree are found in the Tree Assessment Form, and approximate locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Maps (see Exhibits). Thirteen (13) off-site trees with portions of their crowns extending onto the project site were included in the assessment (#325-337).
Table 1: Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees.
Vintage Farm, Napa
Common Name Scientific Name Condition Rating No. of
Dead Poor Fair Good Trees
(0) (1-2) (3) (4-5)
Silk tree Albizia julibrissin - - 1 - 1
Loquat Eriobotrya japonica - - 1 - 1
Calif. black walnut Juglans hindsii - - - 1 1
English walnut Juglans regia 1 - 6 2 9
Glossy privet Ligustrum lucidum - - - 1 1
Apple Malus domestica - 1 - - 1
Olive Olea europaea - - 1 - 1
Avocado Persea americana - - - 1 1
Italian stone pine Pinus pinea - - - 1 1
London plane Platanus x hispanica - - - 13 13
Purple-leaf plum Prunus cerasifera
'Atropurpurea'
- - 1 1 2
Plum Prunus domestica - 1 1 - 2
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia - 3 1 1 5
Valley oak Quercus lobata - - 3 3 6
Weeping willow Salix babylonica - 1 - - 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens - - 1 3 4
Total 1 6 16 27 50
2% 12% 32% 54% 100%
The site was a working farm, with Sierra Ave. dead-ending into the property in the western corner and Villa Ln. running along the eastern boundary. The majority of the trees were either part of the landscape or part of the orchard. A handful of native coast live oaks and valley oaks were growing adjacent to the Austin Miller Memorial Bike Path on the north side of the site.
The most frequently encountered species was London plane, with 13 trees, or 26% of the population (Table 1). These were part of the row of trees planted along Villa Lane, with most located between the sidewalk and curb and gutter. They were all semi-mature, with trunk diameters between 8” and 13”, and in good condition.
Nine (9) English walnuts were part of the orchard along the eastern property line. These were generally multi-stemmed trees in fair to good condition. The exception was #318, which was dead. The other fruit trees in this area were too small to be included in the assessment.
Six (6) valley oaks were assessed on the site, with 5 located between the corals and the bike path and #309 located near the end of Sierra Avenue. Those adjacent to the corals were all semi-mature (7” to 14” in trunk diameter) and in fair to good condition (Photo 1, following page). Valley oak #309 was mature at 23” and in good condition, although it had been pruned on the west side for the overhead utility lines.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 3
Photo 2: Looking
northwest along the
existing fence at the
crown of coast live oak
#326. I estimated that
90% of the crown
extended approximately
23’ east over fence and
onto the development
site. Pruning cannot
correct this situation.
Five (5) coast live oaks were assessed, including 2 on-site trees (#301 and 308) and 3 off- site (#326, 328 and 329). On-site coast live oak #301 was mature and in good condition, while #308 was semi-mature and in fair condition. Condition of the off-site coast live oaks was poor. These trees were part of a small grove of off-site trees in southeast corner of the site. Due to the close spacing of the trees, coast live oaks #326, 328 and 329 all had strong leans or sweeps in their search for light and growing space. As a result, coast live oak #326 had approximately 90% of its crown extending over the development site (Photo 2), #328 had 100% and #329 had 80%. Pruning alone cannot correct these defects and as the trees get larger, their failure potential increases.
Photo 1: Looking
northwest at valley oaks
#302 and 304-307 (R to L).
These young to semi-
mature trees were growing
on the north side of the
site, adjacent to the bike
path. They were in fair to
good condition.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 4
Four (4) coast redwoods were included in the assessment, all of which were located off-site.
Coast redwood #330 was young (estimated at 10”) and #333, 334 and 337 were mature at 33”, 44”/36”/32” and 25” in diameter, respectively. Coast redwoods #333 and 334 were large trees growing right at the fence line, with one of the trunks of #334 damaging the fence.
Coast redwoods #330, 334 and 337 were in good condition and #333 was in fair.
The remaining trees were planted exotics spread out across the site and included the following:
Two (2) off-site purpleleaf plums in fair (#331) and good (#335) condition. Two (2) on-site wild plums in poor (#322) and fair (#327) condition. Apple #303 appeared to be a former orchard tree and was in poor condition. Italian stone pine #310 was a mature specimen, with two trunks measuring 26” and 27” in diameter. It was in good condition, with a spreading form. Avocado #320 was young (7”) and in good condition.
Mature weeping willow #321 was in poor condition and exhibited indicators of drought-stress.
Loquat #323 was young (9”) and in fair condition.
Privet #324 was centrally located on the site and was in good condition. Off-site silk tree #325 was in fair conditi on, with a crown that extended approximately 20’ onto the development site.
Off-site Calif. black walnut #332 was mature, with three trunks (estimated at 21”,15”, and 14”). It was in good condition.
Off-site olive #336 was young and in fair condition.
The city of Napa defines certain native species with at least one trunk 12” or greater in diameter, as Protected Native trees (Chapter 12.45, Ordinance #02003-4). By this definition, 13 of the trees qualified as Protected Native, including 6 of the off-site trees (see Tree Assessment Forms, 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 make sure that they may 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. For trees growing in creeks, away from areas where people and property are present, structural defects and/or poor health presents a low risk of damage or injury if they fail. However, we must be concerned about safety in use areas. Therefore, where development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure and death should be allowed to continue.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 5
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 our experience, for example, coast live oak is more adaptable and tolerates injury better than valley oak.
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 which 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/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. Napa is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Olive and purpleleaf plum are listed 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).
We consider trees with good 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.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 6
Table 2: Tree Suitability for preservation
Vintage Farm, Napa
High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Fifteen (15) trees were rated as being highly suitable for preservation, including 12 London planes, coast redwoods #330 and 337 and valley oak #304.
Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Twenty-two (22) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation, including 5 valley oaks, 3 English walnuts, 2 coast live oaks, 2 coast redwoods, and one (1) each of silk tree, purpleleaf plum, plum, privet, olive, loquat, Italian stone pine, Calif. black walnut, avocado and London plane.
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. Thirteen (13) trees were rated as having low suitability for preservation, including 6 English walnuts, 3 coast live oaks, and one each of weeping willow, purpleleaf plum, plum and apple.
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action
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 health and condition. Potential impacts from construction were evaluated using the Grading and Drainage Plan, prepared by DK Engineering (dated March 26, 2021).
The plan proposes to construct 53 residential homes on the site, with Sierra Ave. extended and connecting to Villa Ln. in the northeast corner of the property. The Plan shows grading for the roads, lots, buildings and bioretention basins. Accurate trunk locations were shown for all of the trees.
Potential impacts from construction were estimated for each tree. A total of 36 trees would be removed, including 6 Native Protected trees. A total of 16 trees would be impacted by lot grading, 11 by street and sidewalk grading and 9 by the bioswales. Of the 36 trees identified for removal, 9 were of low suitability for preservation. Recommended actions for each tree, along with Native Protected status, are listed in Table 3, following page.
Based on my evaluation of the plans, the proposed project would allow for the preservation of 14 trees, including 7 Native Protected trees. Thirteen (13) of the trees identified for preservation were off-site.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 7
Off-site coast live oaks #326, 328 and 329 have been identified for preservation. However, all three trees had an estimated 80% to 100% of their crowns extending over the development site. Pruning will not address these imbalances and the potential for failure of trunks and branches will increase as the tree parts get larger and more overextended. These trees should be considered for removal, all of which qualified as Native Protected trees.
Preservation of trees is predicated on establishing a Tree Protection Zone and other measures recommended in the Tree Preservation Guidelines that follow (following page).
Pruning to provide clearance for construction activities may be required for some of the trees.
Pruning guidelines are provided in the Tree Preservation Guidelines that follow. Any pruning of off-site trees must be done with the property owner’s consent. .
Table 3: Recommendations for Action
Vintage Farm, Napa
Tree # Species Trunk Native Impacts
Diameter (in.) Protected?
301 Coast live oak 21,18 Yes Remove, within Street A
302 Valley oak 14 Yes Remove, within Street A
303 Apple 10,7 No Remove, within Sierra Ave.
304 Valley oak 7 No Remove, within Street A
305 Valley oak 14 Yes Remove, within bioretention
306 Valley oak 10 No Remove, within bioretention
307 Valley oak 13 Yes Remove, within bioretention
308 Coast live oak 16 Yes Remove, within bioretention
309 Valley oak 23 Yes Preserve, 8' from new sidewalk
310 Italian stone pine 26,27 No Remove, within Street A 311 English walnut 9,8 No Remove, within Lot 3
312 English walnut 8,6 No Remove, within Lot 3
313 English walnut 10,9,8,8 No Remove, within Lot 4
314 English walnut 7,6,6 No Remove, within Lot 5
315 English walnut 6,4 No Remove, within Lot 5
316 English walnut 7,6 No Remove, within Lot 6
317 English walnut 10 No Remove, within Lot 7
318 English walnut 11,8 No Remove, within Lot 8
319 English walnut 8 No Remove, within Lot 9
320 Avocado 7 No Remove, within Lot 39
321 Weeping willow 26 Yes Remove, within Lot 40
322 Plum 10 No Remove, within Street A
323 Loquat 9 No Remove, within Street A
324 Privet 15 No Remove, within Lot 49
325 Silk tree 15,14 No Preserve, off-site
326 Coast live oak 20 Yes Preserve, off-site
327 Plum 8,6,3,2 No Preserve, off-site
328 Coast live oak 16,14 Yes Preserve, off-site
329 Coast live oak 17,13 Yes Preserve, off-site
330 Coast redwood 10 No Preserve, off-site
331 Purple-leaf plum 8,7,7,6 No Preserve, off-site
332 Calif. black walnut 21,15,14 Yes Preserve, off-site 333 Coast redwood 36 Yes Preserve, 12' from bioretention 334 Coast redwood 44,38,32 Yes Preserve, 10' from bioretention 335 Purple-leaf plum 6,6,5,4,4 No Preserve, 6' from bioretention 336 Olive 6,4,4 No Preserve, off-site
337 Coast redwood 25 No Preserve, off-site
(Continued, following page)
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 8
Table 3, cont.: Recommendations for Action
Vintage Farm, Napa
Tree # Species Trunk Native Impacts
Diameter (in.) Protected?
338 London plane 9 No Remove, within Street B
339 London plane 8 No Remove, within Street B
340 London plane 7 No Remove, within Street B
341 London plane 8 No Remove, within sidewalk
342 London plane 8 No Remove, within Lot 25
343 London plane 9 No Remove, within Lot 24
344 London plane 9 No Remove, within Lot 24
345 London plane 10 No Remove, within Lot 23
346 London plane 8 No Remove, within bioretention
347 London plane 9 No Remove, within bioretention
348 London plane 8 No Remove, within bioretention
349 London plane 7 No Remove, within bioretention
350 London plane 13 No Remove, within bioretention
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.
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. Evaluate the possibility of removing o ff-site trees #326, 328 and 329. Given their form and structure and the increasing likelihood of failure as they get larger and more over-extended, removal is the prudent course of action.
3. Underground services including utilities, s ub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the T
REE 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.
4. A T
REE PROTECTION ZONE must be established for trees to be preserved, in which no disturbance is permitted. TREE PROTECTION ZONES for trees identified for preservation are provided in the table on the following page. All trees identified for preservation that are not listed in the following table shall be protected at the property line. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 9
Specific Tree Protection Zones
Tree No. TPZ
#309 8' S. DL in all other directions
#333 12’ NW. DL in all other directions
#334 10’ NW. DL in all other directions
#335 6' N. and DL in all other directions.
#239 8' W. and DL in all other directions.
#303 9' S. and DL in all other directions.
5. Tree Preservation Notes, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included on all plans.
6. Any herbicides placed under paving materi als must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use.
7. 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 and construc tion superintendent shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection.
2. If structures and underground features have to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE it shall be done by hand or using the smallest equipment, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The Consulting Arborist shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity.
3. 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 consulting arborist. Fences are to remain until all grading, construction and landscaping is completed. Place weather proof signs, 2’ x 2’, on the fencing that read “TREE PROTECTION ZONE Keep Out” (eg. one sign for each of the four compass points).
4. Prune trees to be preserved to clean the crown and to provide clearance. All pruning shall be done by a State of California Licensed Tree Contractor (C61/D49). All pruning shall be done by Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker in accordance with the Best Management Practices for Pruning (International Society of Arboriculture, 2002) and adhere to the most recent editions of the American National Standard for Tree Care Operations (Z133.1) and Pruning (A300).
5. All tree work shall comply with the Migrat ory 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. Prior to beginning work, the 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.
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 10
2. Prior to grading, pad preparation, excavation for foundations/footings/walls, trenching, trees may require root pruning outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE by cutting all roots cleanly to the depth of the excavation. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a saw, with a vibrating knife, rock saw, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required and monitor all root pruning activities.
3. 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 Consulting Arborist.
4. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times.
5. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste or wash-out water may be deposited, stored, or parked within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE (fenced area).
6. 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.
7. Any additional tree pruning needed for cl earance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel.
Maintenance of impacted trees
Trees preserved at the Vintage Farm site will experience 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 failure of branches or entire trees increases. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
John Leffingwell
Board Certified Master Arborist #WE-3966B
Registered Consulting Arborist #442
ATTACHMENT 6
Arborist Report – Vintage Farm HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Davidon Homes, April 2021 Page 11
Exhibits
Tree Assessment Map
Tree Assessment Form
ATTACHMENT 6
TREE SPECIES SIZE PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER NATIVE TREE 1=POOR FOR
(in inches) 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION
301 Coast live oak 21,18 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1’; seam in attachment; good form and structure.
302 Valley oak 14 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7’; seam in attachment; upright, narrow form.
303 Apple 10,7 No 1 Low Lost main stem; one lateral limb remains; trunk decay.
304 Valley oak 7 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 7’; good, young tree. 305 Valley oak 14 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6’; asymmetric form. 306 Valley oak 10 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7’; old girdling at 3’; very narrow form.
307 Valley oak 13 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 12’; crown sweeps NW. 308 Coast live oak 16 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1’; seam in attachment; one sided W.
309 Valley oak 23 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6’; pruned for overhead utilities S.; one-sided N.
310 Italian stone pine 26,27 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 2’; good form; heavy lateral SW. w/ swing.
311 English walnut 9,8 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 4’; good form. 312 English walnut 8,6 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 4’; good form; trunk wounds & decay.
313 English walnut 10,9,8,8 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 3’; good form; minor dieback.
314 English walnut 7,6,6 No 3 Low Multiple attachments at 3’; good form; trunk wounds & decay.
315 English walnut 6,4 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 3’; small crown; trunk wounds & decay.
Tree Assessment
Vintage Farm
Napa, California
March 2011
ATTACHMENT 6
TREE SPECIES SIZE PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER NATIVE TREE 1=POOR FOR
(in inches) 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION
Tree Assessment
Vintage Farm
Napa, California
March 2011
316 English walnut 7,6 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 1’; narrow form; trunk wounds & decay.
317 English walnut 10 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5’; good form; many basal sprouts.
318 English walnut 11,8 No 0 Low Dead.
319 English walnut 8 No 3 Low Multiple attachments at 7’; one sided S.; trunk wounds & decay.
320 Avocado 7 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 10’; good young tree; drought stressed.
321 Weeping willow 26 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 6’; one sided SE.; moderate dieback & drought stressed.
322 Plum 10 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 3’; lost a stem; poor form and structure.
323 Loquat 9 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 10’; dieback/drought stressed.
324 Glossy privet 15 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7’; good form and structure.
325 Silk tree 15,14 No 3 Moderate Off-site, no tag; codominant trunks at base; looks like it had a prior stem failure.
326 Coast live oak 20 Yes 2 Low Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at 6’; poor form and structure; 90% of crown over
development site.
327 Plum 8,6,3,2 No 3 Moderate Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at 6’; one sided N. over development site.
ATTACHMENT 6
TREE SPECIES SIZE PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER NATIVE TREE 1=POOR FOR
(in inches) 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION
Tree Assessment
Vintage Farm
Napa, California
March 2011
328 Coast live oak 16,14 Yes 2 Low Off-site, no tag; codominant trunks at base; poor form and structure; 100% of crown over
development site.
329 Coast live oak 17,13 Yes 2 Low Off-site, no tag; codominant trunks at 2’; poor form and structure; 80% of crown over development
site.
330 Coast redwood 10 No 5 High Off-site, no tag; good young tree. 331 Purple-leaf plum 8,7,7,6 No 3 Low Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at 3’; moderate dieback.
332 Calif. black walnut 21,15,14 Yes 4 Moderate Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at base; good form.
333 Coast redwood 36 Yes 3 Moderate Off-site, no tag; crowded & one sided N. 334 Coast redwood 44,38,32 Yes 4 Moderate Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at base; good form.
335 Purple-leaf plum 6,6,5,4,4 No 4 Moderate Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at 3’; good form.
336 Olive 6,4,4 No 3 Moderate Off-site, no tag; multiple attachments at 3’; dieback.
337 Coast redwood 25 No 4 High Off-site, no tag; good form and structure. 338 London plane 9 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
339 London plane 8 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
340 London plane 7 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 10’; good form and structure; minor dieback ; in root barrier pot.
ATTACHMENT 6
TREE SPECIES SIZE PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTS No. DIAMETER NATIVE TREE 1=POOR FOR
(in inches) 5=EXCELLENT PRESERVATION
Tree Assessment
Vintage Farm
Napa, California
March 2011
341 London plane 8 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 10’; good form and structure; minor dieback ; in root barrier pot.
342 London plane 8 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 8’; good form and structure.
343 London plane 9 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
344 London plane 9 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
345 London plane 10 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 8’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
346 London plane 8 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 8’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
347 London plane 9 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 8’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
348 London plane 8 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 8’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
349 London plane 7 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 6’; good form and structure; in root barrier pot.
350 London plane 13 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10’; good form and structure.
ATTACHMENT 6
ATTACHMENT 6