My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
04 ATTACHMENT 6
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2021
>
081721
>
04 ATTACHMENT 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/12/2021 4:19:24 PM
Creation date
8/12/2021 3:49:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
8/17/2021
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
Document Relationships
04
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2021\081721
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
35570 Palomares Rd. <br />Castro Valley CA 94552 <br />PHONE: (510) 538-6000 <br />FAX: (510) 538-6001 <br />E-MAIL: tyoung@dryadllc.com <br />WEB SITE: www.dryadllc.com <br />Dryad, LLC <br />September 15, 2020 <br />Torrey Young, Dryad, LLC <br />19053-20078 Resurrection Greek Orthodox Church <br />Site: Dublin Canyon Rd., north of Laurel Creek Dr. <br />Page 14 of 20 <br /> <br />DISCUSSION: <br />General comments: Virtually all 28 trees within the construction zone have excess soil over the root collars. <br />Any trees to be retained should have root collars excavated and inspected before deciding to preserve the tree. <br />Doing so is not construction related but can be critical to discovering or preventing serious root decay disease. <br /> <br /> Trees nos. 941-945, 948, 949, 958-960, 1-9: <br />Comments: This group of 19 trees are to the south, bordering Dublin Canyon Rd. These trees were specifically <br />called out as of critical importance in the City of Pleasanton’s letter entitled “Subject: P20-0549 Preliminary <br />Review Application”, from Jennifer Hagen, Associate Planner, dated June 24, 2020. Trees nos. 950 & 951 also <br />border Dublin Canyon Blvd., but are not included here as they are in direct conflict with the access road. <br /> <br />I understand the overhead utility lines are planned for undergrounding (G. Houston), but many of these trees <br />have been topped for clearance, some repeatedly and severely. Others exhibit inherent and irreparable <br />structural weaknesses and prior failures of major parts (nos. 957, 960). For these reasons and in consideration <br />of proximity to future development and activity, I judged 7 of these 19 trees as poor candidates for preservation <br />based upon their condition. Eight of this group could be retained based upon their condition, but their proximity <br />to the adjacent pathway renders that ill advised. Where the trees are not immediately in the line of the pathway, <br />it falls immediately next to trunks, which will result in significant root loss and hardscape displacement in the <br />future. Two trees (nos. 2 & 957) are of such poor condition that removal is recommended regardless of <br />construction impacts. <br />Recommendations: It is my opinion that the project and the community would be better served by replacing all <br />19 trees with new trees, located for maximum growing space, which can thrive for decades. In the absence of <br />overhead utility lines and allowing for sufficient growing space, replacing with CA coast live oaks (Quercus <br />agrifolia) is reasonable. <br /> <br /> Trees nos. 946, 947, 950-953: <br />Comments: This group of six larger trees is located in direct conflict with construction, including the western <br />access road and the structure (FF432.0). <br />Recommendations: Remove all six trees. <br /> <br /> Tree no. 955: <br />Comments: This large CA live oak originates in the Riparian Corridor, but its severe lean places most of its <br />canopy within the Limit of Grading. A visual inspection suggests this tree is worth preservation. However, there <br />is significant excess fill soil over the south side of the root collar that could be covering significant root disease <br />and decay. The tree is also significantly stunted, with no measurable increase in trunk diameter and poor twig <br />growthH over the last 5 years. <br />Recommendations: <br />1. Perform a root collar excavation and inspection before a decision to preserve this tree. <br />2. If the root collar is sound, extend the protective fencing to the south as far from the trunk as possible (at <br />least at the dripline). <br /> <br /> Tree nos. A-F, J: <br />Comments: Although their condition warrants removal, I recommend some or all of these seven trees be <br />considered for preservation in view of their value for wildlife habitat and creek bank erosion mitigation. These <br />seven trees are not tagged, not appraised and not re-inspected, but are labeled on the tree location diagrams. <br />Their condition and disposition is not relevant to construction activities. <br />Recommendations: I recommend some or all of these seven trees be considered for preservation in view of <br />their value for wildlife habitat and creek bank erosion mitigation. <br /> <br />Riparian Corridor (trees nos. A-J and 955): Although not within the grading limit, protection from construction <br />activities is appropriate. <br />Recommendations: Install protective fencing at least along the Limit of the Riparian Corridor or closer to the <br />Limit of Grading. Install erosion control to prevent accumulation of soil or debris around trees. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.