CON26-0046_Attachment_1_Edgehill_Tree_Assess_1.26_updated.pdf

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com

San Francisco Recreation & Park Department

Tree Risk Assessment Edgehill Mountain Park

Prepared for:

Recreation & Park Department

City of San Francisco McLaren Lodge in Golden Gate Park

San Francisco CA 94117

Prepared by:

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

2550 Ninth Street, Suite #112 Berkeley, CA 94710

January 2026

2550 Ninth Street Suite 112, Berkeley, CA, 94710, 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com

Tree Risk Assessment Edgehill Mountain Park

Recreation & Park Department San Francisco CA

Table of Contents

Page

Introduction and Overview 1

Assessment Methods 1

Description of Trees 2

Suitability for Preservation 4

Tree Risk Assessment 6

Summary and Recommendations 8

List of Tables

Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence. 2

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. 5

Attachments

Tree Assessment Form

Tree Risk Ratings & Recommendations

Tree Inventory Map

Tree Risk Assessment Edgehill Mountain Park

Recreation & Park Department San Francisco CA

Introduction and Overview The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department (SF RPD) requested that HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company (H|BC), assess tree condition, rank tree risk at Edgehill Mountain, and provide recommendations for management for trees in an area outlined by RPD south of homes at the end of Edgehill Way and northeast of Kensington Way in San Francisco.

This report presents the following information:

1. Evaluation of tree health and structural condition.

2. Assessment of the tree risk.

3. Recommendations for action.

Assessment Methods H|BC prepared an assessment of trees throughout in the park in July 2020, and a report on selected trees in August 2024. Additional trees in the northwest section of the park were re-assessed in November 2025 and January 2026. Tree assessment consisted of a visual inspection from the ground and included the following steps:

1. Identifying the tree species.

2. Attaching a numerically coded metal tag on the trunk of each tree.

3. Recording the tree’s location on a map.

4. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54-inches above grade.

5. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:

5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.

4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, or minor structural defects that could be corrected.

3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.

2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated.

1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormic shoots (secondary shoots that arise along the trunk and branches); extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.

0 – Tree is dead.

6. Describing defects in structure, insects or diseases and other aspects of development.

7. Assessing tree suitability for preservation as high, moderate or low.

8. Assessing the risk associated with the tree:

a. Identify the part of the tree most likely to fail and hit a target within the next year.

b. Identify the target(s) that would be impacted by that failure (e.g. street, sidewalk, parking, landscaping).

c. Rate the potential risk using the method described in A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas.

d. Identify arboricultural treatments to reduce the likelihood of failure and improve tree health, structure, stability and longevity.

Access to some trees was limited by heavy growth of vines and groundcovers and/or steep slopes (Photo 1, next page). Under such conditions, it was not possible to fully assess the condition of the base and lower trunk.

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 2 SF Recreation & Park Department.

Description of Trees Seventy-three (74) trees were evaluated, representing four (4) species (Table 1).

Overall, forty-two trees (57%) were in poor condition while 29 (40%) were fair. Monterey cypress #400 was in good condition; blue gums #380 and 383 were dead. Monterey cypress and Monterey pine are native to California but no trees were indigenous to the site. All trees appeared to have been planted as part of landscape development. Tree tag numbers were discontinuous, ranging from #13 to 427.

Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence.

Edgehill Mountain Park. Recreation & Park Department.

San Francisco CA.

Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total

Dead (0)

Poor (1-2)

Fair (3)

Good (4-5)

Blue gum Eucalyptus globulus 2 32 19 - 53

Monterey cypress Hesperocyparis macrocarpa - 8 10 1 19

Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - - 1

Pittosporum Pittosporum sp. - 1 - - 1

Total 2 42 29 1 74

The site was the southwest face of Edgehill Mountain with a steep slope downhill from east to west. Several trees assessed in the previous reports had been removed (Photo 1). Revegetation plantings were visible in these areas. A section of the unpaved pedestrian trail, the Edgehill Way “unaccepted street,” approximately 30 feet wide and 160 feet long, was excluded from the assessment.

Photo 1. Area of removed trees is in the foreground (view looking northwest from trail). Trees assessed were at upper right and center.

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 3

Blue gum dominated the hillside, with 53 trees (71% of the population). More than half (32 trees) were in poor condition with crowded, high thin crowns (Photo 2). Many were leaning and engulfed in ivy; several had exposed roots at steep changes in grade.

Nineteen gums were fair with better structure or more vigorous growth. Gums #380 and 383 were dead. Stage of development ranged from young to mature, with stem diameters of 5 to 48 inches.

Of 19 Monterey cypresses, 10 were in fair condition and eight were poor. Most were one-sided or leaning and had high, sparse crowns. Cypress #400 was in good condition with a high, vigorous crown. Diameters were 5 to 42 inches.

Photo 2. Blue gums were growing in crowded conditions on the slope adjacent to 80 Edgehill Way (house in background).

Photo 3. Monterey cypresses (yellow arrows) were growing among the blue gums on the slope southeast of 60 Edgehill Way (at right).

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 4

The remaining two species were represented by one tree each:

Pittosporum #399 was 5 inches in diameter with a low crown that bowed east. It was suppressed and in poor condition.

Monterey pine #426 was engulfed in ivy, leaning and one-sided to the south. It was in poor condition. Trunk diameter was 17 inches.

Descriptions of individual trees are included in the Tree Assessment Form. Tree locations are noted on the Tree Inventory Map.

Suitability for Preservation Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:

Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees.

Structural integrity

Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely.

Species response

There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and blue gum are sensitive to impacts from construction.

Tree age and longevity

Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.

Species invasiveness

Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (www.cal-ipc.org) lists species identified as having being invasive. San Francisco is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Blue gum is listed as invasive on a limited basis.

Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2, next page).

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 5

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation.

Edgehill Mountain Park. Recreation & Park Department.

San Francisco CA.

High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. None of the trees had high suitability for preservation.

Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Five (5) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for preservation: Monterey cypresses #400, 410, 412; and blue gums #405 and 415

Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Sixty-seven (67) trees were rated as having poor suitability for preservation including 49 blue gums, 16 Monterey cypresses, pittosporum #399 and Monterey pine #426.

Note: Table does not include blue gums #380 and 383. These trees were dead.

We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We generally do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes.

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 6

Tree Risk Assessment Tree risk assessment is the systematic process of evaluating the potential for a tree or one of its parts to fail and, in so doing, injure people or damage property. All trees have the potential to fail. The degree of risk will vary with the size of the tree, type and location of the defect, tree species, and the nature of the target. Tree risk assessment involves three components:

1. a tree with the potential to fail,

2. an environment that may contribute to that failure, and

3. a person or object that would be injured or damaged (i.e. the target).

Tree Risk Rating System All of the surveyed trees were assessed using the procedure outlined in A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas (N. Matheny & J. Clark 1994 (2nd edition. International Society of Arboriculture. Champaign IL). Following a visual inspection of tree health and structural condition, the part of the tree most likely fail within the next year was identified (e.g. branch, stem, or whole tree). The target that would be impacted by this part of the tree was then identified. The risk associated with the tree was evaluated using the following components:

Failure potential (4 points) - identifies the most likely failure and rates the likelihood that the structural defect(s) will result in failure within the next year. The part of the tree most likely to fail was assessed using the following scale:

1 - low - defects are minor (e.g. dieback of twigs, small wounds with good woundwood development)

2 - medium - defects are present and obvious (e.g. lean or bow that has developed over time, cavity encompassing 10-25% of the circumference of the stem, codominant stems without included bark)

3 - high - compounding and/or significant defects present (e.g. severe lean, cavity encompassing 30-50% of the circumference of the stem, multiple pruning wounds with decay along a branch)

4 - severe - defects are very severe (e.g. partial uprooting of leaning tree, decay conks along the main stem, cavity encompassing more than 50% of the stem)

Size of defective part (4 points) - rates the size of the part most likely to fail. Larger parts present a greater potential for damage. Therefore, the size of the failure affects the potential for injury or damage. The scoring system was as follows:

1 - most likely failure less than 6-inches in diameter 2 - most likely failure 6 - 18-inches in diameter 3 - most likely failure 18 - 30-inches in diameter 4 - most likely failure greater than 30-inches in diameter

Target rating (4 points) - rates the use and occupancy of the area that would be struck by the defective part. For the project areas, the following scoring was employed:

1 - occasional use (e.g. landscape areas) 2 - intermittent use (e.g. sidewalk, paths, designated trail) 3 - frequent use (e.g. parking) 4 - constant use (e.g. high volume streets, residences).

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 7

The points in each category were added to obtain the overall hazard rating, with 3 being the minimum and 12 being the maximum value.

Risk ranking = failure potential + size of defective part + target rating

Among assessed trees, the most likely failure included branch (52), whole tree (18), dead branch (2), and stem (1). Among potential targets were adjacent residences (7 trees), parking on Kensington Way (14), the unpaved social trail (7), and landscape (45).

Risk rankings ranged from 3 to 9 (see Attachments). Under a normal management regime, trees with the highest ranking would be abated first, followed in order of decreasing ratings. The City of San Francisco Recreation and Park Department typically abates risk for trees ranked 9 or greater. RPD has requested abatement of 8 and above for the subject project. Blue gums #74 and 419 had risk ratings of 9. Blue gums #31, 80, 374, 411, 422 and Monterey cypress #78 and 376 had risk ratings of 8.

Note that this report represents the condition of the trees at the time of inspection. All information provided by Bartlett Tree Experts was based on the conditions and characteristics of the trees observed at the time of the inspection. Bartlett Tree Experts can make no guarantees or warranties of any kind that all conditions or defects will be observed, detected, or factored into the overall report or recommendations, nor does it accept any liability in any manner whatsoever for any damage caused by any tree on this property, whether the tree was inventoried, inspected, or present during the fulfillment of the assigned work; or not.

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 8

HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company

Summary and Recommendations Seventy-three (73) trees were evaluated on the southwest slope of Edgehill Mountain:

52 blue gums, 19 Monterey cypresses, one Monterey pine and one pittosporum. In general, trees were mature to over-mature in development. Overall trunk diameters ranged from 5 to 48 inches.

Forty-one (41) trees were in poor condition while 29 were fair. Two blue gums were dead. Monterey cypress #400 was in good condition. Tree condition was influenced by available growing space and overall maturity. Tree risk rankings ranged from 3 to 9 on a scale of 3 to 12. Proposed disposition of individual trees is shown in the Tree Risk Ratings & Recommendations Form.

H|BC met with RPD staff to discuss long-term maintenance strategies at the park. We discussed removal of trees with an 8 or above based on elevated risk rating. Other trees were identified for removal as part of long-term maintenance to increase the quality of the tree resource at the park. Trees included in this group were in poor condition and had low suitability for preservation. Removal is a prudent management option.

Thirty-one (31) trees have been identified for removal. Based on my observations and assessment of risk, I recommend the following:

1. Remove eight trees (#31, 74, 78, 80, 374, 376, 419, and 422) due to elevated risk of 8 or higher. Prioritize scheduling these trees over other removals. Other trees in poor condition or with low suitability for preservation may be removed as SF RPD continues the revegetation project on the hillside.

2. Remove 23 additional trees to improve the overall condition of the tree resource as you continue revegetation of the hillside. Included in this group are 19 blue gums and four Monterey cypresses.

3. Prune blue gum #411 to reduce crown over Kensington Way and remove deadwood.

4. Monitor trees to be preserved for changes in lean and stability due to exposed roots on the eroded slope.

5. Remove ivy from trunks of trees near park property lines and along the path. Cut ivy, wait for stems to die, and then remove dead tissue.

6. Continue the ongoing program of tree removal and replacement particularly where large trees are adjacent to residences.

Our procedures included assessing trees for observable defects in structure. This is not to say that trees without significant defects will not fail. Failure of apparently defect-free trees does occur, especially during storm events. Wind forces, for example, can exceed the strength of defect-free wood causing branches and trunks to break. Wind forces coupled with rain can saturate soils, reducing their ability to hold roots, and blow over defect-free trees. Although we cannot predict all failures, identifying those trees with observable defects is a critical component of enhancing public safety.

Tree Risk Assessment. Edgehill Mountain Park, January 2026. Page 9

Furthermore, trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner.

If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me.

HortScience | Bartlett Consulting

Pam Nagle ISA Certified Arborist #WE-9617A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Registered Consulting Arborist #805

Ryan Suttle, Consulting Arborist & Urban Forester ISA Board Certified Master Arborist, Utility Specialist No. WE-12647BU ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #813 ASCA Tree and Plant Appraisal Qualified

ATTACHMENTS

Tree Assessment Form

Tree Risk Ratings & Recommendations

Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter

(in.)

Condition 0=dead 1=poor

5=excellent

Suitability for Preservation

Comments

13 Monterey cypress 27 3 Low Codominant at ~7' w/ stem bending out to lateral; slight lean N.

14 Monterey cypress 31 3 Low Leans S.; partially engulfed in ivy.

26 Blue gum 18 1 Low Topped high in crown; all but dead.

27 Blue gum 14 3 Low High sparse crown.

28 Blue gum 17 2 Low High sparse crown.

30 Blue gum 27 2 Low Very high crown; trunk cleared of ivy.

31 Blue gum 42 2 Low History of stem/branch failure; topped.

32 Blue gum 18 3 Low Slight lean S.; high crown; crowded.

33 Blue gum 18 2 Low Leans S.; stem failed against trunk.

74 Blue gum 25,24,23 3 Low Old tag #338. Multiple attachments at ~4'; narrow high crown; roots exposed on steep bank.

78 Monterey cypress 16,8 2 Low Leans S.; growing out of #74/338; topped.

79 Blue gum 10 3 Low High thin crown; some dieback.

80 Blue gum 14 2 Low Roots undercut/exposed on steep Bank; slight lean W.

81 Monterey cypress 14 3 Low Top bows S.W.; history of small limb failure; vigorous.

84 Blue gum 28 3 Low Slight lean S.; high sparse crown.

370 Blue gum 8 2 Low Base undercut S.; slight lean W.; very suppressed.

371 Blue gum 11 1 Low Topped; all but dead.

372 Blue gum 18 3 Low High crown; slight lean E.

373 Blue gum 8 2 Low High sparse crown; crowded.

374 Blue gum 31 3 Low Crown bows S. + corrects; crowded.

375 Monterey cypress 12 3 Low Top bows S.; vigorous; crowded.

376 Monterey cypress 16 2 Low Leaning S.W. + partially corrected; sinuous trunk.

377 Blue gum 27 3 Low Codominant stems at ~8'; engulfed in ivy; open V-shaped crown.

378 Monterey cypress 9 3 Low Leans W.; suppressed.

379 Blue gum 20 3 Low Sweeps E. + corrects; high crown.

380 Blue gum 5 0 -- Standing dead.

Tree Assessment Edgehill Mountain Park San Francisco, CA

(in.)

Condition 0=dead 1=poor

5=excellent

Suitability for Preservation

Comments

Tree Assessment Edgehill Mountain Park San Francisco, CA January 2026

381 Blue gum 10 2 Low High thin narrow crown.

382 Blue gum 8 2 Low Top bows S.; branch dieback.

383 Blue gum 6 0 -- Codominant stems at ~2 w/ lost stem N.; dead.

384 Monterey cypress 7 2 Low Leans W.; high crown.

385 Monterey cypress 5 1 Low Leans S.W.; extremely suppressed.

386 Monterey cypress 10 2 Low Leans S.W.; high crown; extremely crowded.

387 Blue gum 7 1 Low All but dead.

388 Blue gum 12 2 Low Very high sparse crown.

389 Blue gum 10 2 Low Very high crown bows S.; sparse.

390 Monterey cypress 7 1 Low Top failed + bows S.; sparse.

391 Monterey cypress 14 3 Low Codominant stems at ~8'; bows W.; suppressed.

392 Blue gum 8 2 Low Leans W.; sparse high crown.

393 Blue gum 7 1 Low Top bows W.; all but dead.

394 Monterey cypress 14 3 Low 1-sided W.; suppressed.

395 Blue gum 30 3 Low Codominant stems arise near base; top bows W.; suppressed.

396 Monterey cypress 13,10 3 Low Codominant at base w/ wide attachment; growing over rock at base of adjacent gum; 1-sided W.

397 Blue gum 7 2 Low Leans E.; codominant at ~12'; thin crown.

398 Blue gum 6 2 Low Leans N.; engulfed in ivy.

399 Pittosporum 5 2 Low Crown bows E.; suppressed.

400 Monterey cypress 42 4 Moderate Engulfed in ivy; high vigorous crown.

401 Blue gum 23 3 Low High crown bows S.E.; crowded.

402 Blue gum 21 2 Low Engulfed in ivy; leans N.

403 Blue gum 12 2 Low Engulfed in ivy; leans W.; suppressed.

404 Blue gum 17 2 Low High sparse crown w/ dieback.

405 Blue gum 48 3 Moderate Codominant at ~8'; high separating crown.

406 Blue gum 15 2 Low Leans W.; high sparse crown w/ dieback.

(in.)

Condition 0=dead 1=poor

5=excellent

Suitability for Preservation

Comments

Tree Assessment Edgehill Mountain Park San Francisco, CA January 2026

407 Monterey cypress 6 2 Low 1-sided W.; sparse.

408 Blue gum 7 3 Low High thin crown.

409 Blue gum 18 3 Low Engulfed in ivy; high crown dips W. + corrects.

410 Monterey cypress 24 3 Moderate 1-sided S.W.; history of small branch failure.

411 Blue gum 22,17,16 3 Low Multiple attachments at ~2'; high narrow crown w/ dieback.

412 Monterey cypress 24 3 Moderate 1-sided + bows S.

413 Monterey cypress 16 2 Low Decay column E.; high sparse crown w/ dieback.

414 Blue gum 19 2 Low Rangy sparse crown w/ extensive dieback.

415 Blue gum 5 3 Moderate Good form + structure; suppressed.

416 Blue gum 8,2,2 2 Low 1-sided S.; multiple attachments arise from base; vigorous.

417 Blue gum 7 3 Low Sparse thin crown.

418 Blue gum 12 2 Low Base in ivy; top dieback.

419 Blue gum 26,7,5 3 Low Exposed roots on steep bank; multiple attachments near base.

420 Blue gum 21 3 Low 1-sided S.; irregular form at top.

421 Blue gum 8,5 2 Low Codominant stems arise from base; leans S.; 1-sided S.

422 Blue gum 16 1 Low Top failed; engulfed in ivy; all but dead.

423 Blue gum 17,7 2 Low Leans N.; high crown w/ dieback.

424 Blue gum 8 2 Low High sparse crown w/ dieback.

425 Blue gum 7 1 Low Slight lean S.; completely engulfed in ivy.

426 Monterey pine 17 2 Low Engulfed in ivy; leans + 1-sided S.

427 Blue gum 17,6,2 2 Low Multiple attachments at ~3'; 17" stem engulfed in ivy; open crown.

428 Blue gum 16 2 Low High crown; one-sided E; low vigor; minor cavities at 2 feet from old low branches; compartmentalized

(in.)

Condition 0=dead 1=poor

5=excellent

Most likely failure

Target Failure potential

Size of part Target rating

Sum Maintenance recommendations

13 Monterey cypress 27 3 Branch Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 2 2: 6 to <18'' 4 8

14 Monterey cypress 31 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

26 Blue gum 18 1 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 3 3: 18 to <30'' 1 7 Remove; long-term maintenance.

27 Blue gum 14 3 Branch Trail, unpaved social 2 1: <6'' 1 4

28 Blue gum 17 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4

30 Blue gum 27 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

31 Blue gum 42 2 Branch Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 2 2: 6 to <18'' 4 8 Remove; risk.

32 Blue gum 18 3 Branch Trail, unpaved social 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

33 Blue gum 18 2 Whole tree Trail, unpaved social 3 3: 18 to <30'' 1 7

74 Blue gum 25,24,23 3 Whole tree Parking adjacent street 2 4: 30'' and above 3 9 Remove; risk.

78 Monterey cypress 16,8 2 Branch Parking adjacent street 3 2: 6 to <18'' 3 8 Remove; risk.

79 Blue gum 10 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

80 Blue gum 14 2 Whole tree Parking adjacent street 3 2: 6 to <18'' 3 8 Remove; risk.

81 Monterey cypress 14 3 Branch Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7 Remove; long-term maintenance.

84 Blue gum 28 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6

370 Blue gum 8 2 Whole tree Trail, unpaved social 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5 Remove; long-term maintenance.

371 Blue gum 11 1 Whole tree Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 1 2: 6 to <18'' 4 7 Remove; long-term maintenance.

372 Blue gum 18 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

373 Blue gum 8 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

374 Blue gum 31 3 Branch Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 2 2: 6 to <18'' 4 8 Remove; risk.

375 Monterey cypress 12 3 Branch Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 2 1: <6'' 4 7

376 Monterey cypress 16 2 Branch Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 2 2: 6 to <18'' 4 8 Remove; risk.

377 Blue gum 27 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

378 Monterey cypress 9 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 1: <6'' 1 5

379 Blue gum 20 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

380 Blue gum 5 0 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

381 Blue gum 10 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

382 Blue gum 8 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 1: <6'' 1 5 Remove; long-term maintenance.

383 Blue gum 6 0 Stem Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6 Remove; long-term maintenance.

384 Monterey cypress 7 2 Whole tree Trail, unpaved social 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

385 Monterey cypress 5 1 Branch Trail, unpaved social 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

386 Monterey cypress 10 2 Branch Trail, unpaved social 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

387 Blue gum 7 1 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

388 Blue gum 12 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4

389 Blue gum 10 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 1: <6'' 1 5

390 Monterey cypress 7 1 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6 Remove; long-term maintenance.

391 Monterey cypress 14 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

Tree Risk Ratings & Recommendations Edgehill Mountain Park

(in.)

Condition 0=dead 1=poor

5=excellent

Most likely failure

Target Failure potential

Size of part Target rating

Sum Maintenance recommendations

392 Blue gum 8 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4

393 Blue gum 7 1 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 1 2: 6 to <18'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

394 Monterey cypress 14 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6

395 Blue gum 30 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

396 Monterey cypress 13,10 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6

397 Blue gum 7 2 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5 Remove; long-term maintenance.

398 Blue gum 6 2 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5 Remove; long-term maintenance.

399 Pittosporum 5 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4

400 Monterey cypress 42 4 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

401 Blue gum 23 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

402 Blue gum 21 2 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 1 3: 18 to <30'' 1 5

403 Blue gum 12 2 Whole tree Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

404 Blue gum 17 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6

405 Blue gum 48 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 5

406 Blue gum 15 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 1: <6'' 1 5

407 Monterey cypress 6 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4

408 Blue gum 7 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

409 Blue gum 18 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 1 2: 6 to <18'' 1 4

410 Monterey cypress 24 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6

411 Blue gum 22,17,16 3 Dead branch Parking adjacent street 3 2: 6 to <18'' 3 8 Prune deadwood.

412 Monterey cypress 24 3 Branch Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7

413 Monterey cypress 16 2 Branch Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7

414 Blue gum 19 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6 Remove; long-term maintenance.

415 Blue gum 5 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 1 1: <6'' 1 3 Remove; long-term maintenance.

416 Blue gum 8,2,2 2 Whole tree Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7

417 Blue gum 7 3 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

418 Blue gum 12 2 Branch Parking adjacent street 3 1: <6'' 3 7

419 Blue gum 26,7,5 3 Whole tree Adj non-Rec & Park Dept property parcel - residence 2 3: 18 to <30'' 4 9 Remove; risk.

420 Blue gum 21 3 Branch Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7

421 Blue gum 8,5 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 1: <6'' 1 4

422 Blue gum 16 1 Whole tree Parking adjacent street 3 2: 6 to <18'' 3 8 Remove; risk.

423 Blue gum 17,7 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 3 2: 6 to <18'' 1 6

424 Blue gum 8 2 Dead branch Landscape, greenspace 3 1: <6'' 1 5

425 Blue gum 7 1 Whole tree Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7 Remove; long-term maintenance.

426 Monterey pine 17 2 Whole tree Parking adjacent street 2 2: 6 to <18'' 3 7

427 Blue gum 17,6,2 2 Branch Parking adjacent street 2 1: <6'' 3 6

428 Blue gum 16 2 Branch Landscape, greenspace 2 2: 6 to <18'' 1 4 Remove; long-term maintenance.

Tree Risk Ratings & Recommendations Edgehill Mountain Park

Edgehill Mountain San Francisco, CA

Prepared For:

SF Recreation and Park Department Middle Drive West San Francisco, CA 94117

January 2026

2550 Ninth Street, Suite 112 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596

Note that tree locations are approximate

K ensington

W ayKensington

W ay

K ensington

W ay

K ensington

W ay

K ensington

W ayKensington

W ay

371 32

26 377378

382383

390391

393394

402403

407408

422 423

424425

Microsoft, Vantor, Sources: Esri, TomTom, Garmin, FAO, NOAA, USGS, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

¯ 0 25 5012.5 Feet