3_Exhibit B - Laserfiche WebLink

Arborist Report, Stoneridge Shopping Center, 1008 Stoneridge Mall Rd March 10, 2022 (updated 6/21/22) Jennifer Tso, BCMA 3 were performed. Internal or non-detectable defects may exist and could lead to part or whole tree failures. Due to the dynamic nature of trees and their environment, it is not possible for arborists to guarantee that trees will not fail in the future. Observations & Discussion Tree condition Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) is the dominant species, with 23 trees making up 18.9% of the total population. It is followed by London planetree (Platanus x hispanica) at 14.8% and Canary Island pine (Pinus canariensis) at 10.1%. The condition of the trees is variable but are largely dependent on how much space a given tree has to grow, as well as its water needs. The trees that were planted in small parking lot planters, no more than 4’ x 4’ in width, are in the worst shape because they are fully surrounded by asphalt. Whether these planters were actively irrigated is unclear. The trees located in larger planters have fared better, especially if they are relatively drought tolerant. For instance, London planetrees #133-139 & 148-152 are among the best trees in the project area (Figure 1). The same species also performs relatively well along the North-South oriented Stoneridge Mall Rd, though the planters and trees are both smaller. Chinese pistaches (Pistacia chinensis) is a drought- tolerant species, so it appears to thrive in the small parking lot planters compared to drought- sensitive species like Raywood ash (Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’), mulberry (Morus alba, Figure 1) and Callery pear. While not confirmed, it appears that the property may have reduced its landscape irrigation – a water conservation sign was found by trees #94-96. Irrigation reduction would partially explain the stress symptoms found across the site. Proposed encroachment Proposed grading will be significant. Trees that directly conflict with the new structures & driveways obviously need to be removed, but grading will also extend well outside of the main project area. For instance, the grade change surrounding Drive Aisle A affects trees #94-96 & 98-112 located across the drive aisle from the rest of the development. My query as to whether the sidewalks could be adjusted to preserve the perimeter trees revealed that these were a part of frontage improvements mandated by the City. An earlier plan showed a road that cut into the tip of the planter by sweet gums #265 & 266 (Figure 2). Per my recommendation, the design has been adjusted to maintain the existing planter to reduce root loss next to the trunks. While sweet gums are tolerant of root loss, the key to tree preservation is to limit negative impacts as much as possible. Since the design has limited flexibility, a total of 103 trees will need to be removed. New parking lot planters will be constructed west of Drive Aisle B, some of which conflict with existing trees and landscape planters. While the planters by tree #238, 250 and 257 do not directly conflict, their locations near the new planters may conflict with the design layout. Additionally, these trees are not in ideal condition. Mulberries #238 & 250 are both in 2’ x 2’ wide planters, with their trunks and branches damaged by sunburn or vehicles. The callery pear #257 is in fair health with fair to poor structure; its growth is stunted and its branches are all crowded at the Figure 2. The proposed drive aisle design was adjusted to preserve the landscape area containing sweet gums #265 & 266. The entire area shall be fenced off.