HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttach 4 Ltr from H ScienceFebruary 2, 2004
Mr. Alex Loukianoff
12 Kirk Court
Alamo, CA 94507
Subject: Peer review
Joseph McNeil's Arborist Report
Dear Mr. Loukainoff:
You requested that I conduct a peer review of the Arborist Report prepared by Joseph
McNeil, Consulting Arborist. The Arborist Report focused on the impacts of
construction of a new home at 11299 Rolling Hills Drive in Dublin.
I based my review on the Arborist Report from Mr. McNeil dated January 12, 2004,
which you provided via electronic mail on January 5, 2004.
I visited the site with you on August 18, 2003 to assess tree protection required for your
proposed project at that time. I also evaluated the valley oak (Quercus Iobata), tree
#353, referred to in Mr. McNeil's report. In addition, HortScience, Inc. prepared a
Heritage tree protection plan for Black Mountain Development in February, 2001, which
included an assessment of tree #353. This letter summarizes my comments and review.
Observations
I concur with Mr. McNeil's assessment of
the tree's condition as fair to good. In the
Heritage tree protection report
(HortScience, 2001) tree #353 was rated
in good condition. Its condition has
changed little since 2001 (see photo).
The site plan in Mr. McNeil's report
showed tree #353 approximately 18' from
the proposed "pop-out", and about 17'
from the proposed deck. The dripline
extended about 5' over both the "pop-out"
and proposed deck. The canopy on the
south side of tree #353 extended to within
2'-3' above existing grade.
Mr. McNeil recommended removal of the soil
that has sloughed downslope and built up
around the trunk of tree #353. I agree.
Tree #353 in good condition with a full crown
as photographed on August 18, 2003.
Letter to Alex Loukianoff
Peer review, Joseph McNeil
HortScience, Inc.
Page 2
Evaluation of Impacts
I concur with Mr. McNeil that there will be limited impact to the tree's root system from the
construction of the house and deck as the design is presented. The 4' "temporary zone
of encroachment" that will result from foot traffic to construct the north side of the home
will have some impact on the roots of the tree. As suggested by Mr. McNeil this condition
can be improved by the placement of mulch in this area after the project is complete.
The pruning of several limbs from 2" to 7" to provide construction clearance will likely
constitute a greater stress for the tree than impacts to the roots. I agree with Mr. McNeil
that the stress related to the construction and pruning is within the tolerances of the tree,
assuming the guidelines he provided are followed.
Mr. McNeil's guidelines for managing construction impacts are both sound and
comprehensive. The sections outlining irrigation, drainage and landscaping requirements
for native oaks are especially important.
Summary and Recommendations
In summary, my assessment of tree condition, impacts, and recommendations concur
with Mr. McNeil's.
I also recommend the following:
Prune the tree after the foundation lines for the house and deck are marked on
the ground to provide a visual guide for the limit of clearance pruning. This will
limit the need for repeated pruning.
2. Remove existing sloughed soil from around the trunk of tree #353 to a distance
of 5'. Monitor annually so the condition does not reoccur.
3. The tree should be inspected annually to monitor health and structural stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to prepare this review. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions regarding my observations or assessment.
Sincerely,
Michael Santos
Certified Arborist