721easternave spa addendum snhia report...

CH2M Kitchener 72 Victoria Street Suite 300 Kitchener, ON N2G 4Y9 O +519 579 3500 F +519 579 8986 www.ch2m.com

Paul Mulé, Planner City of Toronto Community Planning Toronto City Hall, 18th floor 100 Queen Street West Toronto, ON M5H 2N2

November 28, 2017

Subject: Addendum to the Scoped Natural Heritage Impact Assessment for 721 Eastern Avenue, Site Plan Approval Application – Site 1; files 17 137240 STE 30 OZ and 17 137249 STE 30 SB

Dear Mr. Mulé,

CH2M HILL Canada Limited (CH2M) is pleased to present this Addendum to the Scoped Natural Heritage Impact Assessment (SNHIA, CH2M, 2017a) for the property located at 721 Eastern Avenue (“Subject Property”), located north of Lake Shore Boulevard East and west of Leslie Street, in the City of Toronto, Ontario (“City”).

Project Background On March 31, 2017, General Motors of Canada Company (GM Canada) submitted an application for a Zoning By‐law Amendment along with a Plan of Subdivision (files 17 137240 STE 30 OZ and 17 137249 STE 30 SB respectively) to permit the development of office, research and development, ancillary retail, and an auto dealership on the Subject Property. A Notice of Complete Application and Assignment of Application under the City’s STAR Process was received on May 18, 2017. An Official Plan Amendment application was submitted on October 30, 2017 to provide for a Site and Area Specific Policy to permit a vehicle dealership in a Core Employment Area. A Notice of Complete Application for the OPA is anticipated shortly. As part of the above noted applications, a Preliminary Geotechnical Report (CH2M, 2017a) was submitted to the City.

Purpose of the Addendum to the Scoped Natural Heritage Impact Assessment As in the March 2017 submission, the proposed development will support employment space across 3 development blocks (referred to as Site 1, 2 and 3). The purpose of this update is to supplement the original March 2017 SNHIA. The objective of this letter is to support the Site Plan Approval application for Site 1 of the proposed development and the new proposed public Right‐of‐Way (ROW) only. Site Plan Approval Applications for Sites 2 and 3 will be submitted at a later phase. This addendum/report should be reviewed in conjunction with the original March 2017 Scoped Natural Heritage Impact Assessment.

Overview of the Proposed Development ‐ Updated As in the March 2017 submission, at full build‐out the proposed development will support employment space across 3 development blocks (referred to as Site 1, 2 and 3). The development proposal for the

Paul Mulé, Planner November 28, 2017

Subject Property provides for 82,000 m2 of employment uses, creating an opportunity for up to 3,000 new high order jobs.

A multi‐use campus referred to as the “Toronto GM Mobility Campus” will be located on the south portion of the Subject Property (“Site 1”). The Toronto GM Mobility Campus will be housed in a multifunctional 5‐storey, 26,081 m2 building. The subject of this application and this addendum letter report is for Site 1 and the new proposed public ROW only.

The Subject Property, which is nearly void of vegetation, will be enhanced with new connections, an improved public realm which includes generous sidewalks, street trees, landscaping, bicycle lanes, and other pedestrian and cyclist amenities, on grades adjusted to meet Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) flood proofing requirements.

Sites 2 and 3 remain in the schematic design stage, therefore, details relating to internal configuration, final massing, at grade uses, and parking structures have yet to be determined. GM Canada is engaging with the non‐residential development community for potential development partners for these sites. A Site Plan Application(s) will be submitted at a later phase for Sites 2 and 3.

The original concept site plan has been modified to realign the internal road network from the previously proposed Berkshire Avenue to Rushbrooke Avenue (referred to as the “new proposed Rushbrooke Avenue Public Right‐of‐Way” or “new proposed public ROW”). The new proposed public ROW is a local road along the eastern property line of the Subject Property. The new intersection with Eastern Avenue includes improvements. This alignment resulted in changes to the internal private driveway network. The proposed site layout is presented in Figure 1.

Identification of Natural Heritage Features and Functions

A SNHIA was required to be completed based on the information provided to CH2M during a telephone conversation with Ms. Jane Weninger, a senior planner from the City of Toronto, on October 25, 2016. GM Canada’s proposal involves the removal of a number of trees from the City‐owned property along the southern edge of the Subject Property adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard (the “City Property”). The City Property area has been identified as a Natural Heritage Feature as shown on Map 9 of the City’s Official Plan. Ms. Weninger indicated that a SNHIA would need to be completed to address concerns associated with the loss of trees within the City Property and potential resulting impacts to birds.

Right‐of‐Way

The City Property is located between the Subject Property and Lake Shore Boulevard East. The current development plan as shown in Figure 1 has not changed the site plan layout in the vicinity of the City Property and therefore no change from the original SNHIA Report is anticipated.

Vegetation

As part of the SNHIA, an updated Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan was prepared by Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. and is included as Attachment A. Their work plan included the following work on the Subject Property and in the adjacent City Property:

Inventory of the tree resources greater than 15 cm diameter at breast height (DBH) on private lands and trees of all sizes within the City Property, on and within six metres of the Subject Property

Evaluate potential tree saving opportunities based on proposed development plans

Birds

As indicated in the SNHIA Report, no Species At Risk or Species of Special Concern were observed during the March 17 site reconnaissance visit or are expected to inhabit the Subject Property or City Property.


Impact Identification and Analysis Vegetation

The removal of 47 healthy trees within the Subject Property and the City Property will be required to accommodate the proposed development. An additional 20 trees are recommended for removal due to their condition for a total of 67 across both areas.

Subject Property

The Subject Property is an actively used commercial property that is nearly devoid of vegetation with the exception of a few landscape planted trees. Therefore, negligible impacts are expected to vegetation on the Subject Property (including Site 1) as a result of site redevelopment including the more recent site plan layout changes (Quadrangle, 2017). Five trees are recommended for removal within the Subject Property.

City Property

The revised Site Plan includes the recommended removal of 62 trees within the City Property either due to the development or their condition.

Birds

Subject Property

The proposed site plan layout is not expected to change the conclusions regarding impacts to Birds at the Subject Property (including Site 1).

City Property

The proposed site plan layout is not expected to change the conclusions regarding impacts to Birds at within the City Property.

Responses to Impacts As noted in Section 3 of the SNHIA report, impacts are not expected to vegetation or birds on the Subject Property (including Site 1) but minor impacts are expected within the City Property. The avoidance and mitigative measures as proposed in the SNHIA are still valid with the following minor changes based on the changes to the planting plan.

The proposed Site layout is not expected to have any impact on the following as described in the SNHIA report:

Green Roof

Site and Building Lighting

Indoor Plantings

Tree Planting Plan

The proposed development of the Subject Property provides an excellent opportunity to greatly increase both the quantity and quality of vegetation present, which will subsequently increase the quantity and quality of habitat for birds. The landscape proposal for the Toronto GM Mobility Campus includes a planting strategy and approach that will provide habitats for bird species that exist naturally within the urban fabric of Toronto, such as Gulls (sp.), Northern Cardinals, American Robins, House Sparrows and European Starlings. These species may be able to nest and inhabit the Subject Property and/or will utilize the Toronto GM Mobility Campus site as a transitory corridor as they move within the City. Additionally, migratory or transitory species that migrate north in summer and south in the winter


will also benefit from this added habitat as it will provide a resting and feeding area. It is proposed that 160 trees be planted throughout the Toronto GM Mobility Campus and City Property.

As a result of the planting of 160 trees as well as a variety of shrubs, the quality and quantity of vegetation present in the area will increase and will benefit the birds substantially.

Tree Layout

The design layout and positioning of trees within the landscape will have several beneficial impacts. Firstly, they will integrate the proposed building seamlessly into the surrounding landscape. Trees also will act as shade areas around seating and hardscape elements and in doing so will reduce the urban heat island effect, cooling the microclimate within their vicinity. They will act as a natural transitory corridor for bird movement with many trees being located within bioswales at the sidewalk edges. Trees define space both horizontally and vertically, and rows of trees on both sides of a street will humanize the height‐to‐width ratio between the building and street. The landscape proposal endeavors to locate trees away from the immediate vicinity of the building, mitigating the reflective vegetation that confuses birds and results in impaction with glass.

Tree Preservation

The proposed site plan layout is not expected to change the conclusions regarding tree preservation at the Subject Property (including Site 1). Please refer to section 4.6 of the original SNHIA report and Summary and Recommendations section in the updated Kuntz report included as Attachment A.

Best Management Practices

As described in the SNHIA report, it is expected that a series of best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to prevent and minimize environmental impacts including to vegetation and birds.

Conclusions and Recommendations This Addendum letter report to the SNHIA was prepared focusing on potential impacts to vegetation and birds at Site 1 and in the adjacent City Property that may be affected by the construction of the proposed Toronto GM Mobility Campus within Site 1 and the new proposed Rushbrooke Avenue Public Right‐of‐Way. As noted in the SNHIA, impacts are not expected to vegetation or birds on the Subject Property (including Site 1) but minor impacts are expected within the City Property. This conclusion does not change in light of the changes to the Site layout (Quadrangle, 2017). To prevent and mitigate potential impacts, a series of building and landscape design considerations will be incorporated into the development of the Toronto GM Mobility Campus. Only a few landscape planted trees are present on the Subject Property and 62 trees will be removed from within the City Property. A total of 160 trees representing a range of species will be planted to compensate for the loss of trees during redevelopment, thus significantly enhancing the quality and quantity of vegetation and bird habitat present in the area. Impacts to trees and birds will also be mitigated through tree placement, incorporation of a green building roof, site and building lighting design, indoor planting locations, tree preservation measures and well as the implementation of BMPs.

Based on the above considerations, it is expected that impacts to vegetation and birds will be mitigated and in fact, construction of the Toronto GM Mobility Campus is likely to provide beneficial effects to vegetation and birds.


Closure Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have questions regarding this document.

Regards,

CH2M HILL Canada Limited

Jennifer L Caron, P.Eng., Project Engineer

Approved and Reviewed By:

James T. Kroetsch, F.W.T., M.Sc., CCEP, QPRA Kurt O. Hansen, B.E.S., M.E.S., QPESA Senior Scientist Senior Project Manager

References CH2M HILL. 2017. Final Report, Scoped Natural Heritage Impact Assessment, 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, March 27, 2017.

Quadrangle 2017. Architectural Plans dated November 28, 2017.

Addendum Letter Report – Figure

Attachment A Kuntz Forestry Report (November 2017)

Tree Inventory & Preservation Plan Report 721 Eastern Avenue

Toronto, Ontario

prepared for

Terraplan Landscape Architects 20 Champlain Blvd,

Toronto, Ontario M3H 2Z1

prepared by

16 December 2016, revised 27 November 2017

KUNTZ FORESTRY CONSULTING INC Project P1430

Terraplan Landscape Architects 16 Dec. 2016, revised 27 Nov. 2017 Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Report, 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, ON

Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. P1430 1

Introduction Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. was retained by Terraplan Landscape Architects to complete a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan for the proposed development located at 721 Eastern Avenue in Toronto, Ontario (the Subject Property). This version of the report supersedes the March 2017 version. The work plan for this tree preservation study included the following:

Prepare inventory of the tree resources greater than 15cm diameter at breast height (DBH) on private lands and trees of all sizes within the road right-of-way, on and within six metres of the Subject Property;

Evaluate potential tree saving opportunities based on proposed development plans; and

Document the findings in a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan Report. Policy Framework The Subject Property is subject to the provisions of the City of Toronto’s Private Tree-By-law (Chapter 813) which regulates tree injury and destruction of individual trees within the City of Toronto. Preliminary information is acquired on individual trees which are then categorized in compliance with the by-law in support of development applications. Tree categories range from one through five and are as follows:

Categories 1. Trees with diameters of 30 cm or more situated on private property on the subject site. 2. Trees with diameters of 30 cm or more, situated on private property, within 6 m of the subject site. 3. Trees of all diameters situated on City owned parkland within 6 m of the subject site. 4. On lands designated under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 658, Ravine and Natural Feature Protection, trees of all diameters within 10 metres of any construction activity. 5. Trees of all diameters situated within the City road allowance adjacent to the subject site. (City of Toronto, 2008).

Methodology Tree resources were assessed utilizing the following parameters: Tree # - number assigned to tree that corresponds to Figure 1. Species - common and botanical names provided in the inventory table. DBH - diameter (centimetres) at breast height, measured at 1.4 m above the ground. Condition - condition of tree considering trunk integrity, crown structure, and crown vigour. Condition ratings include poor (P), fair (F) and good (G). Comments - additional relevant detail. Trees measuring over 15cm DBH on and within six metres of the Subject Property and trees of all sizes within the road right-of-way were included in the inventory. Trees were located using the topographic survey of the Subject Property and estimations made in-



field. Trees were tagged using numbers 174-200 and 301-329. Trees that could not be tagged were identified as Trees A-Z and AA-AH. A polygon (group of trees) was identified as P1 and was assessed by 100% tally, categorizing trees by species, size class, and condition [AGS(acceptable growing stock) and UGS (unacceptable growing stock)]. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for the results of the inventory and Figure 1 for the locations of trees identified in the inventory. Existing Site Conditions The Subject Property is currently occupied by a film production studio, warehouse uses, and associated outdoor storage. The property contains an extensive asphalt surface driveway throughout. Tree resources exist in the form of landscape trees, including boulevard trees surrounding the Subject Property. Tree Resources The tree inventory was conducted on 07 December 2016. The inventory documented 90 trees and one polygon on and within six metres of the Subject Property. Refer to Tables 1 and 2 for the full tree inventory and Figure 1 for the location of trees reported in the tree inventory. Tree resources included in the inventory are comprised of Blue Spruce (Picea pungens), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Eastern Cottonwood (Populus deltoides), Freeman Maple (Acer x freemanii), Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), Kentucky Coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus), Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila), Turkish Hazel (Corylus colurna), Horsechestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), Common Hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), Willow species (Salix spp.), and Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo). Proposed Development As in the March 2017 submission, at full build-out the proposed development will support employment space across 3 development blocks (referred to as Site 1, 2 and 3). The development proposal for the Subject Property provides for 82,000m2 of employment uses, creating an opportunity for up to 3,000 new high order jobs. A multi-use campus referred to as the “Toronto GM Mobility Campus” will be located on the south portion of the Subject Property (“Site 1”). The Toronto GM Mobility Campus will be housed in a multifunctional 5-storey, 26,081m2 building. The subject of this application and this addendum letter report is for Site 1 and the proposed public Right-of-Way (ROW) only. The Subject Property, which is nearly void of vegetation, will be enhanced with new connections, an improved public realm which includes generous sidewalks, street trees, landscaping, bicycle lanes, and other pedestrian and cyclist amenities, on grades adjusted to meet TRCA flood proofing requirements. Sites 2 and 3 remain in the schematic design stage, therefore, details relating to internal configuration, final massing, at grade uses, and parking structures have yet to be determined. GM Canada is engaging with the non-residential development community



for potential development partners for these sites. A Site Plan Application(s) will be submitted at a later phase for Sites 2 and 3. Refer to Figure 1 and the Quadrangle Site Plan dated November 28, 2017 for the existing conditions and proposed site plan. Discussion The following sections provide a discussion and analysis of development impacts, tree removal requirements, and tree preservation relative to the proposed development and existing conditions. Development Impacts/Tree Removals The removal of 47 trees will be required to accommodate the proposed development. 42 of these trees are located within the ROW, and five or located on neighbouring properties. Required removals are identified as Trees 174-200, 301, 303-310, A-E, G, I, AC, AD, AF, and AH. 20 additional trees within the ROW are recommended for removal due to their condition, regardless of the proposed site plan. Trees recommended for removal due to their condition are identified as Trees 302, 316-329, H, Y, AB, AE, and AG. Of these trees, trees 174-200, 301-310, 316-329, G, H, I Y, AB, and AC-AH are located within the right-of-way of the proposed new public road (Category 5 trees), and Tree C is greater than 30cm DBH and shared with the neighbouring property owner (Category 1/2 tree). Trees D and E are located on the neighbouring property to the west and are greater than 30cm DBH (Category 2 trees). A permit from the City of Toronto is required prior to the removal of these trees, and permission from the neighbouring property owners is required prior to the removal of neighbouring trees, including Trees A-E. Refer to Figure 1 for the locations of these trees and Tables 1 and 2 for their conditions. Trees G, I, AC, AF, and AH should be considered good candidates for transplant. As per the above, Trees AC, AD, and AF were originally identified for preservation in the March 2017 version of this report but are now identified for removal to accommodate the proposed enhanced landscaping through this area. Tree Preservation The preservation of Trees 311-315, F, J-X, Z, AA, and P1 will be possible with appropriate tree protection measures as indicated on Figure 1. Tree protection measures will have to be implemented prior to construction to ensure tree resources designated for retention are not impacted. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of required tree preservation fencing, general Tree Protection Plan Notes, and the tree protection barrier detail. Tree Compensation The removal of trees within the Lakeshore Boulevard East right-of-way will be required. This portion of the property is designated as a Natural Heritage System in the City of Toronto’s Official Plan. A total of 62 trees are identified for removal through this area.



Species identified for removal include: 61% Blue Spruce, 23% Green Ash, 3% Bur Oak, 7% Horsechestnut, 2% Turkish Hazel, 3% Kentucky Coffeetree, and 2% Hackberry. The majority of these trees are relatively small (<20cm DBH). 160 trees are proposed to be planted throughout the site. Ultimately, the site will see an increase in canopy cover as a result of the plantings. The site will also see an increase in biodiversity as a result of the new plantings. In addition to shrubs, the following species of trees are proposed: Amelanchier canadensis Ginkgo bilboba Betula papyrifera Betula pendula 'Youngii' Sorbus aucuparia Prunus virginiana 'Shubert' Pinus strobus Gledista triacanthos Tilia americana Quercus macrocarpa Acer freemanii

Refer to plans prepared by Terraplan Landscape Architects for the planting plan. Summary and Recommendations Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc. was retained by Terraplan Landsape Architects to complete a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan in support of the proposed development for 721 Eastern Avenue in Toronto, Ontario. A tree inventory was conducted and reviewed in the context of the proposed site plan. The findings of the study indicate a total of 90 trees and one polygon on and within six metres of the Subject Property. The removal of 47 trees will be required to accommodate the proposed development. An additional 20 trees are recommended for removal due to their condition (diseased and/or in decline), regardless of the site plan. All other trees can be saved provided appropriate tree protection measures are installed prior to construction. The following recommendations are suggested to minimize impacts to trees identified for preservation. Refer to Figure 1 for additional tree preservation notes. Tree protection barriers and fencing should be erected at distances as prescribed on

Figure 1.

Tree protection measures will have to be implemented prior to construction to ensure the trees identified for preservation are not impacted by the development.

Branches and roots that extend past prescribed tree protection zones that require

pruning must be pruned by a qualified Arborist or other tree professional. All pruning of tree roots and branches must be in accordance with good arboricultural standards.



Site visits, pre, during, and post construction are recommended by either a certified

consulting arborist (I.S.A.) or registered professional forester (R.P.F.) to ensure proper utilization of tree protection barriers. Trees should also be inspected for damage incurred during construction to ensure appropriate pruning or other mitigation measures are implemented.

Respectfully Submitted, Kuntz Forestry Consulting Inc.

Steven Ardron Steven Ardron, B.Sc. ISA Certified Arborist #ON1854-A

Celine Batterink Celine Batterink, H.B.Sc. Ecology Associate Ecologist, ISA Certified Arborist #ON1546-A



Table 1. Tree Inventory

Date: 07 December 2016 Surveyors: SA

Tree #Common Name

Scientific Name DBH TI CS CV CDB Cat. Comments Action

174 Blue Spruce Picea pungens ~16 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L) Remove175 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 19 F-G G G 5 Lean (L), Sw eep (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove176 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 17.5 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Lean (VL) Remove177 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 19 F-G G G 5 Lean (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove178 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 15.5 F-G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Lean (L) Remove

179 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 15 F-G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Crooked stem (L) Remove

180 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16.5 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L) Remove181 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 19 G G F-G 5 Deadw ood (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove182 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 G G G 5 Lean (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove183 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove184 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 23.5 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove185 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 F F F 5 Lean (M), Sw eep (L), Deadw ood (M), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove186 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 17 F-G F-G F-G 5 Deadw ood (L), Lean (VL), Sw eep (VL) Remove

187 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 13 F F-G F-G 5 Lean (M), Crook at 2m, sw eep (L), Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove

188 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 17 F-G G F-G 5 Lean (L), Sw eep (VL), Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove189 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 P-F F F-G 5 Poor form, Lean (H), Crook at 1.6m, Pruning w ounds (L) Remove190 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 F-G G G 5 Lean (L), Crook at 2m, Deadw ood (VL), Bow (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove

191 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 F F-G G 5Lean (L), Crook at 3m, Deadw ood (VL), Asymmetric crow n (L), Pruning w ounds (L)

Remove

192 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14.5 G F-G G 5 Asymmtric crow n (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove193 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14 F-G F-G F-G 5 Lean (VL), Crooked stem (L), Deadw ood (VL), Asymmetric crow n (L) Remove194 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16.5 G G G 5 Deadw ood (VL) Remove195 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 12.5 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove

196 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14 F-G F-G F 5Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (L), Lean (L), Crooked stem (L), Losing vigor

Remove

197 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14.5 F F F 5Pruning w ounds (L), Lean (L), Bow (L), Poor form, Asymmetric crow n (L), Losing vigor

Remove

198 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14 F F F 5 Asymmetric crow n (M), Bow (L), Deadw ood (L), Losing vigor Remove199 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 12 F-G F-G F 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Crooked stem (L), Deadw ood (L), Losing vigor Remove200 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16 F-G F-G F-G 5 Deadw ood (L), Pruning w ounds (L), Lean (L), Crooked stem (L) Remove301 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 17.5 F-G G G 5 Lean (L), Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove

302 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 11 F P-F P-F 40 5Asymmetric crow n (H), Deadw ood (M), Lean (L), Pruning w ounds (L),

Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)

303 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 3.5 G F-G F-G 5 Asymmetric crow n (L), Deadw ood (L), Pruning w ounds (L) Remove

304 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14 F-G F-G F 5Deadw ood (L), Pruning w ounds (L), Asymmetric crow n (L), Crooked stem (L), Losing vigor

Remove

305 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 17 F-G G G 5 Lean (L), Sw eep (L) Remove306 Blue Spruce Picea pungens ~14 F-G F-G F 5 Deadw ood (L), Pruning w ounds (L), Crooked stem (L), Losing vigor Remove

307 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16.5 F-G F-G F 5Deadw ood (L), Pruning w ounds (L), Crooked stem (VL), Nail inclusions, Losing vigor

Remove

308 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 16.5 F-G F-G F-G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (L), Nail inclusions, Losing vigor Remove309 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 17.5 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Remove310 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14 G G G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL), Lean (VL) Remove311 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 21.5 G F-G F-G 5 Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (L), Vine competition (VL), Losing vigor Retain312 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 14 F P-F F 5 Lost leader, Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (L), Losing vigor Retain313 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 18.5 G F F-G 5 Lost leader, Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL) Retain314 Blue Spruce Picea pungens 15 F-G F F-G 5 Lost leader, Pruning w ounds (L), Deadw ood (VL), Lean (L) Retain315 Blue Spruce Picea pungens ~21 G G G 5 Retain

316 Green AshFraxinus pennsylvanica

14 P F-G F-G 5Emeral Ash Borer infestation (H), Coppice grow th (M), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


13, 13.5 P F F-G 5Co-dominant at base, Lean (L), Bow (M), Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Asymmetric crow n (L), Coppice grow th (L), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


4.5, 6, 6.5, 7, 7.5

P F-G F-G 5Co-dominant at base and 1.1m, Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Deadw ood (L), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


10.5 P P-F P-F 5Asymmetric crow n (H), Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Deadw ood (H), Coppice grow th (M), Leader dead, Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


11, 13 P P-F F-G 5Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Co-dominant at 0.2m, Bark peeling, Coppice grow th (M), Asymmetric crow n (L), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


6.5, 7.5, 11.5, 21

P F-G F-G 5Co-dominant at base, Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Bark Peeling, Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


15, 18.5 P P-F F-G 5Bark Peeling, Co-dominant at 1m, Lean (L), Bow (M), Asymmetric crow n (M), Coppice grow th (L), Emerald Ash Borer (H), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


11 P F F-G 5Coppice grow th (M), Lean (L), Bow (M), Asymmetric crow n (L), Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Bark peeling, Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


10 P F-G F-G 5Emerald Ash Borer Infestation (H), Coppice grow th (H), Bark peeling,

Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


3.5, 4, 4, 4.5, 6, 6,

13P F-G F-G 5

Co-dominant at base and 0.6m, Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Deadw ood (L), Bark splitting, Asymmetric crow n (L), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


18, 18 P F-G F-G 5Co-dominant at base, Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Coppice grow th (M), Deadw ood (L), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


12.5, 13.5, 15

P F F-G 5Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Bark splitting and peeling, Bow (M), Lean (L), Co-dominant at 0.3m and 1.2m, Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


12.5, 17, 18

P F-G F-G 5Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Bark splitting and peeling, Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)


13 P P-F F-G 5Emerald Ash Borer infestation (H), Coppice grow th (M), Asymmetric crow n (M)

Remove (Condition)

A Tree of HeavenAilanthus altissima

18 F G G Root restriction, Fence inclusion Remove

Location: 721 Eastern Avenue, Toronto



B Tree of HeavenAilanthus altissima

16 F G G Root restriction, Fence inclusion Remove

CEastern Cottonw ood

Populus deltoides

~25, 30 F G G 1, 2 Co-dominant at 0.3m, Fence inclusion Remove

DEastern Cottonw ood

Populus deltoides

~41 F F F-G 2 Lean (L), Lost leader, Asymmetric crow n (M), Epicormic branching (L) Remove

EEastern Cottonw ood

Populus deltoides

~41 F F-G F-G 2 Epicormic branching (M), Lost leader, Bow (L) Remove

F Freeman Maple Acer x freemanii 19 F-G F P-F 40 5 Previously tagged 0169, Witches broom (M), Deadw ood (M) Retain

G Bur OakQuercus macrocarpa

7 F-G G G 5 Lean (L), Bow (L)Remove

(Transplant Candidate)

H Bur OakQuercus macrocarpa

4.5 F P-F P-F 5Lean (L), Stem w ound at crook at 2.1m, Coppice grow th (M), Poor form,

Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)

I Catalpa Catalpa spp. 4.5 G G G 5 Recently plantedRemove


JKentucky Coffeetree

Gymnocladus dioicus

7 G G G 5 Retain

K Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 11.5 G G G 5 RetainL Freeman Maple Acer x freemanii 7.5 G G G 5 RetainM Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 7.5 G G G 5 RetainN Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 6 G G G 5 Retain

O HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

4 G F-G G 5 Lost leader - new branch assuming leader Retain

P HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum


Q HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

5.5 G F-G G 5 Lost leader - new branch assuming leader Retain

R Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 5 G G G 5 RetainS Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 5.5 G G G 5 RetainT Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 5 G G G 5 Retain

U HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum


V HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

2.5 G F-G F-G 5 Lost leader - new branch assuming leader, Deadw ood (L) Retain

W HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

3.5 G F-G G 5 Lost leader - new branch assuming leader Retain

X Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 7.5 G G G 5 Retain

Y Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 7 P-F P P 60 5Lost leader, Coppice grow th (H), Deadw ood (H), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)

Z Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 5 G G G 5 RetainAA Turkish Hazel Corylus colurna 10 G G G 5 Retain

AB HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

4 D D D 100 5 Dead - RemoveRemove

(Condition)

AC HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

5 G F-G G 5 Lost leader - new branch assuming leaderRemove


AD HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

4 F F-G F-G 10 5Lost leader - new branch assuming leader, Stem w ounds (L), Deadw ood (L)

Remove

AE HorsechestnutAesculus hippocastanum

3 P-F F F 20 5Lost leader - new branch assuming leader, Stem w ounds at base (H), Deadw ood (L), Removal recommended

Remove (Condition)

AFKentucky Coffeetree

Gymnocladus dioicus

4.5 G G G 5 New ly plantedRemove


AGKentucky Coffeetree

Gymnocladus dioicus

5 F-G F P-F 50 5 Deadw ood (H), Co-dominant at 1.5m, Removal recommendedRemove

(Condition)

AH HackberryCeltis occidentalis

2.5 G G G 5 New ly plantedRemove


P1 2 See Table 2 RetainSee Table 2

DBHDiameter at Breast Height

(cm)

TI Trunk Integrity (G, F, P)CS Crown Structure (G, F, P)CV Crown Vigor (G, F, P)

CDB Crown Die Back (%)

catCity of Toronto Tree By-law Category

1-5

~ = estimate; (VL) = very light; (L) = light; (M) = moderate; (H) = heavy

Codes



Table 2. Polygon Stand Analysis

Location: 721 Eastern Avenue

Date: 07 December 2016

Surveyor: Steven Ardron

Compartment Number: P1

Stations Tallied: 100% Tally

Stand Analysis Tally (by Species, Size Class and Quality Class)

Species AGS UGS AGS UGS AGS UGS AGS UGS

Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia )

2 2 1

Willow Species (Salix spp. )

1 1 2 2 1

Manitoba Maple (Acer negundo )

1 1

Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima )

1

Total Number of Trees 3 3 1 5 0 2 0 1

Tree Size Class >>>>

Polewood 10-24 cm

Sawtimber Sizes

Small 26-36 cm

Medium 38-48 cm

Large 50 cm +

721easternave spa addendum snhia report...

Documents