My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
3A Public Hearing 2008 0122
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2008
>
Packet 2008 0122
>
3A Public Hearing 2008 0122
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2008 10:22:05 AM
Creation date
1/22/2008 10:22:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
1/22/2008
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2008 0122
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2008\Packet 2008 0122
MO 2008-004
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Minute Orders\2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
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
Davidon Homes, July 2007 HortScience, Inc. <br />Tree Report, Woodside Apartments Page 4 <br />Tree age and longevity <br />Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited <br />physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are <br />better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. <br />Species invasiveness <br />Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not <br />always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous <br />species are displaced. In this case, there were no species present that would be <br />considered invasive. <br />Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural <br />condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, <br />following page). <br />We consider trees with good suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for <br />preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with poor suitability for <br />preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with <br />moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site <br />changes. <br />Table 2: Tree Suitability for Preservation <br />Woodside Apartments, San Leandro <br />Good These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the <br />potential for longevity at the site. No trees were of good suitability for <br />preservation. <br />Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that <br />may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more <br />intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life- <br />spans than those in the "good" category. Thirty-two (32) trees were <br />of moderate suitability for preservation. <br />Tree No. Species Diameter <br /> (in.) <br />322 Sweet gum 13 <br />323 Sweet gum 10 <br />325 Sweet gum 9 <br />326 Sweet gum 9 <br />327 Purple leaf plum 6,3,1,1 <br />328 Sweet gum 11 <br />329 Sweet gum 8 <br />330 Sweet gum 12 <br />334 Sweet gurn 15 <br />337 Coast redwood 23 <br />338 Coast redwood 25 <br />339 Coast redwood 21 <br />340 Coast redwood 24 <br />341 Coast redwood 28 <br />342 Coast redwood 26 <br />343 Coast redwood 23 <br />344 Coast redwood 21 <br />(Continued, following page) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.