The URL can be used to link to this page

1 - 2020 05-15 Vallco arborist inspection letter (1) Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A 05/15/2020 Arborist Inspection Letter Inspection Time Period: May, 2020 Site: Vallco Town Center Period: Demolition Phase Work Zones: 1 A/1 B/1 C Craig Bacheller, Rafael Vinoly Architects (RVA) cbacheller(c vinoly.com Mike Rohde, Vallco Property Manager, mrohde(cDvallcoshopping mall.com (Sand Hill Property Co.) Paul Hansen, Sand Hill Construction Management phansen(@-shcmllc.com Clint Magill, Devcon Construction cmagill(a�devcon-const.com To whom it may concern: The author Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist or"WLCA" visited the site on 5/15/2020 to re-inspect tree protection measures, tree irrigation, and signage installed by Devcon for demolition zone 1A (and surrounding areas as applicable), which involves removal of parking structures at the southwest corner of the site. WLCA also reviewed various other site areas that are in the process of being fitted with surface mulch, tree protection fencing, etc. This report includes some or all of the following reference items: • Full Tree Map/Tree disposition and location map sheet P-0602B by OLIN (new version May, 2020). • Photographs/ Digital images representative of current site conditions archived in May, 2020 by WLCA. • Tree Data Table/The tree data table provided at the end of this report is the May 15, 2020 iteration. Trees removed from the site since start of project are noted on this Excel table with black hatching fill, and the rightmost column contains detailed, updated notes on tree condition, approximate removal date, etc. The database is updated to note all of the hundreds of permitted removals that have occurred since start of demolition. In this iteration, tree#429 is hatched out and noted as "signage posted for removal". • Updates per today's site visit(5/15/2020) are noted in non-bolded yellow highlight. • Suggested to-do punchlist items (if any)for Sand Hill Property Co. (SHPCO)or Devcon Construction Co. (DEVCON)that are currently outstanding, are noted in yellow-highlighted black bold, if and where applicable, below in this inspection report. Author's Side Notes: WLCA noted that in the WLCA tree database there are a very large number of the trees in dead, very poor, or poor overall condition that may die outright due to natural causes (e.g. soil moisture deficit from extended droughty weather conditions in California between roughly 2011 and 2017, etc.) unrelated to the Vallco property redevelopment work. As of May, 2020, Most open soil tree root zone areas at Vallco are at roughly 70% to 100%field capacity soil moisture when probed with a Lincoln meter/probe, which is a direct result of our over-grade, heavy-flow type temporary irrigation system installed by SHPCO contractors. 1 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A QUICK VIEW SUMMARY/ NEW ITEMS FROM MAY 15, 2020 ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT Mike Rohde of SHPCO requested that WLCA visit the Vallco site during the shelter in place order, so that we could formally document activities by homeless persons living around the Vallco site trees on N. Wolfe Road. WLCA visited the site on 4/15/2020 and approached the homeless camp with two security officers and Mr. Rohde. We archived digital photos of the homeless encampment, and noted the tag number#428 (see digital images below in this report). As of May, 2020, the camp consists of roughly fourteen (14)tents ranging from small to large family size tents that are set up on the tree planting strip between the public sidewalk and the public roadway(N. Wolfe Road), with accompanying cooking gear, gas powered generators, bicycles, and other items. The southmost tent is adjacent to street ash tree#431. The tents extend northward around street ash tree#428 which is the northmost tree remaining in our Vallco tree study population. The homeless camp tents extend further northward along the tree planting strip beyond tree#428 to a non-surveyed ash specimen on another property(see photos below in this report). The activities of the camp are likely having a significant negative effect on the trees' root systems per the following: • The open soil root zones are normally open to the air, and therefore would normally receive oxygen exchange with the atmosphere and natural rainfall. Placement of tents and other waterproof items over the ground results in loss of oxygen transfer between the roots and the atmosphere, causing the root zones of the trees to go somewhat anaerobic. • With tents placed over the root systems of the street ash tree specimens (trees#428, 429, and 431), the trees are not receiving either natural rainfall moisture. • Irrigation water from SHPCO's hand-watering that used to be performed multiple times per week, every week, can no longer be performed due to the camp's presence, which means that trees#428, 429, 431 will quickly experience soil moisture deficit(aka "drought stress")within a few weeks, unless the encampment is moved. SHPCO is soon planning to have the final piped irrigation zone set up through this area in June, 2020, but if the camp is not removed prior to this irrigation installation work, the work will not be able to be performed. • The trees' root systems are likely becoming unnecessarily compacted due to the extensive homeless foot traffic, homeless sleeping in tents, and weight of the various camp items over the ground, resulting in loss of natural oxygenated soil pore space that is necessary for tree roots to survive. It is difficult to restore the soil once compaction of pore spaces has occurred. Methods could include augering, water jetting, or Airspade air excavation to establish vertical decompaction channels in the soil profile inside which angular gravel can be placed to fill the voids. • Fuel dumping could be negatively impacting tree roots in a severe manner(e.g. spills of gasoline used for the camp's electricity generators, and/or spills of camp cooking fuels used by camp occupants). • Human wastes (feces, urine, etc.) are likely being released daily by the homeless camp occupants. These materials can have a severe negative impact on the roots of the streetside ash trees, given that the materials are being released over an extended time period, on a frequent and repeated basis, directly over the open soil tree root systems as highly concentrated organic materials that have not been pre-composted by any means. These human wastes are typically high in salt(ion and cation)content, and can cause root death due to what is sometimes referred to as "fertilizer burn" (i.e. a "high salt index"). • Physical damages to the trunks and/or roots of trees #428 and/or#431 may also be occurring. • Tree Removals: WLCA expects that at least a portion of the camp and its occupants will need to be moved or removed in order to facilitate removal of tree#429, currently posted as to be removed per formal removal permit 2of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A through City of Cupertino. The tree is located just east of the green clad chain link fence. However, the fence will need to be temporarily removed in order to facilitate tree removal, which means that the camp and its occupants will also need to be moved or removed. • 5/15/2020 Root Protection Zone (RPZ) Fence Vandalism:WLCA noted during the May 2020 site inspection that the homeless persons living on or near to Vallco property have (apparently) cut through the chain link material of the "south gate" at the south end of West Perimeter Road (WPR)which is a locked consulting arborist access point for entrance into the root protection zone (RPZ) used to exclude persons from entering into our over-grade irrigation area running in a north-south orientation under the redwood and ash tree specimens being preserved and protected, parallel to West Perimeter Road. The RPZ fenced area that was recently vandalized is now accessible to passersby, and is assumedly being used by homeless persons to access the RPZ area due to its dense forest of redwood and ash trees, plus the green-clad chain link fence, which makes this hidden zone ideal for sleeping and for use as a transit route to walk to and from retail stores in Cupertino and the existing homeless encampment on N. Wolfe Road. It is suggested that the Vallco team repair the chain link south gate at the WPR root protection zone as soon as possible, in order to prevent this area from being used by homeless persons. LINE ITEM TREE TAG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBERS NOTES / LOCATION AFFECTED These trees are currently still in place in the ground, and have not been boxed up for transplant as of the date of writing. There is chain link RPZ type fencing protection around these five trees as of the date of writing, and additional protection consisting of trunk buffer wraps around #97, 98, 99. There is currently no system set up to irrigate the three westmost oaks to be transplanted (trees#97, 98, 99).WLCA recommended today to SHPCO that the team provide the following: a. Berms: Pin down straw wattles in large, full perimeter circles Tree around the trees, to force irrigation water to infiltrate directly down transplantation into the open soil root zones. planning. #69, 70, 1 97, 98, 99 b. Chips: Cover the open soil root zones with a layer approximately 4 Required inches thick, using chipper truck-type natural wood chips derived transplants. from Tree Tech company's pruning operations at Vallco. Lay wood chips down between the straw wattles and one foot out from the trunk edges of the trees. c. Irrigation: Hand-water the trees using a hose system, or bring in a water truck to provide high volumes of available water per each irrigation event. d. Frequency/Volume: Irrigate at a rate of approximately 2x a month, using 50 to 100 gallons of water per tree per each irrigation event. 3of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A LINE ITEM TREE TAG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBERS NOTES / LOCATION AFFECTED Trees#260, 261, and #262 are currently set up with over-grade high flow Tree irrigation via flex tubing, and trunk buffers have been wrapped around the trunks transplantation of each tree. Chain link fencing has also been erected around the trees. planning. #260, 261, 2 262, 414, #414, 415, and #416 have trunk buffer wraps, but no chain link fencing or piped Discretionary 415, 416 irrigation yet, as of the date of writing. They are being hand-watered. WLCA's transplants. soil moisture probe readings indicated 60% to 100/o relative soil moisture in open soil areas of the root zones. Mr. Bench, in his August, 2019 letter report, stated that a written set of transplanting specifications needs to be in hand at least 3 months prior to boxing Transplanting up trees for transplanting at Vallco. 3 Plan Report by WLCA WLCA actually prepared a Vallco transplanting specifications report back in 12/7/2018 12/7/2018, which was submitted to Craig Bacheller of RVA. This report can be used as a specification standard, or it can be updated as needed prior to use as the specification standard for our transplanting of existing site trees at Vallco. Areas that now have active running temporary irrigation via over-grade PVC piping and Salco flexible UV-resistant PVC include the following: a. Stevens Creek Blvd. trees (evergreen ash trees along the landscape swale along the north side of the street), between North Wolfe Road and West Perimeter Road. 3 bubblers per each tree, emitting up to gallon every 45 seconds, per my volumetric flow test today. Timers set for 7 days/week activation, 30 minutes of active flow, 2x/day. This works out to roughly 60 gallons per tree per day. As of May, 2020, the timer system is running at 3x/week, Temporary 40 minutes flow per activation day(20 min X 2 activations on each timer-activated irrigation event day). NOTE: The system activation may need to be to irrigation increased as we head into the warmer summer weather pattern this 4 system (Various) June, 2020. installation b. North Wolfe Road trees, both west and east sides of street, between areas Stevens Creek Blvd. and freeway 280. (same 3-bubbler setup for each tree, and same timer-activated frequency and duration for water delivery as noted above). West side of N. Wolfe Road trees were noted to have roughly 80% to 100% relative soil moisture between Stevens Creek and the flyway, which has now been demolished as of April 15, 2020. Lush green grass growth is seen in the planting areas surrounding the ash trees along the west side of N. Wolfe Road, indicating that excellent soil moisture is being provided by the over-grade irrigation system. The only area still not yet set up with active running irrigation as of December, 2019, is the east side of street, between the flyway and freeway 280 (i.e. the "Alexander Steakhouse trees"), and the northmost median trees between the flyway and freeway 280. These areas are 4of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A LINE ITEM TREE TAG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBERS NOTES / LOCATION AFFECTED being heavily hand-watered by Sand Hill Property Co. Staffpersons. Soil moisture is at 70% to 100% as of 4/15/2020. Note that the TGIF trees are being irrigated using a Netafim emitter lines built into parallel rows running lengthwise along the relatively narrow open soil planting strip in this area. Soil moisture is 100%field capacity in this area. Street ash tree#265 in this area (tag number not verified), to be removed at a later time, was noted to have sustained a three foot long bark tear at 12 to 15 feet above grade, on a mainstem measuring 8 inches diameter. (The tag number of this tree was not visible due to the trunk buffer wraps). c. Sycamore island grouping of trees#260, 261, 262 on N.Wolfe Road (west side). Soil moisture could not be confirmed in this area. d. West Perimeter Road (WPR)trees: multiple rows of evergreen ash trees and coast redwood trees along the west side of the roadway, between Stevens Creek Blvd and the north end of the Vallco project near the Freeway 280 southbound off-ramp. This was the very first area where over-grade Salco brand UV-resistant irrigation piping was installed and activated by electronic timers. The system was originally running 7x/week, but was reduced to 2x/week activation during Winter 2019-20. As of 2/25/2020, the system were on 3x/week activation, and soil moisture was very good with profuse green weed growth in the root zones of WPR redwoods. The irrigation system will be running approximately 5x/week after daytime ambient air temperatures rise to highs of 70F or 80F (e.g. June, , 2020). As of 5/15/2020, soil moisture is at approximately 80% to 100% throughout the root zones of the double row of trees along the entire west side of West Perimeter Road, and profuse new green ivy groundcover and lush green weed growth, indicating that over-grade irrigation being emitted to the trees' root systems has significantly boosted soil moisture. In April/May, 2020, the project team cut down the thousands of sprouts arising from the bases of the trees from the bud burls (lignotubers). The profuse growth of these sprouts over the last few months may be yet another indication that the trees are being well irrigated and that the root systems maintain relatively high soil moisture levels. UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED JOINT ELECTRICAL TRENCH AREA (I.E. NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST PERIMETER ROAD): • The row of ash trees +/-#685 to#703 in the northwest corner of the Vallco site are leafing out better than previously expected, as of spring, 2020, due to consistent very heavy irrigation supplied by the Vallco team's over-grade irrigation system for more than one year. These trees are to be removed per plan, 5of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A LINE ITEM TREE TAG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBERS NOTES / LOCATION AFFECTED and are noted in "grey" color coding on the approved Vallco tree disposition plan sheet P0602B, from 2018. • Redwoods#611 through #621 were illegally pruned in the proposed joint trench area by a tree care company hired by one of the property owners living directly west of West Perimeter Road. The tree care company literally shaved off the entire west sides of the trees' canopies, from top of property boundary wall to the tops of the trees (as noted previously by WLCA). As can be seen in the digital images below in this 4/15/2020 report, the trees' regrowth to date since the illegal pruning has been pitiful at best, and the trees are expected to remain in a state of severe canopy damage with only minimal chance of recovery to their prior condition ratings. Decline of the trees' vigor(new growth) and/or a reduction in longevity in the landscape due directly to this illegal pruning is likely. e. East Perimeter Road (EPR)trees along the Apple Inc. property boundary are all now irrigated via flex tubing running along grade, as of October, 2019. Soil in the vicinity of the bubblers here is at 80-100% field capacity as of 5/15/2020, and visibly very moist. The trees appear to have better vigor(canopy twig and foliage growth)than in previous years, likely due to the heavy irrigation they have been receiving via the over-grade irrigation water supply system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Author's Side Note: WLCA used a site-calibrated Lincoln soil moisture meter/probe today to test soil moisture of many of the streetside trees being protected and retained at the Vallco properties. Results indicated that the soil had generally 70% to 100% relative soil moisture in the vicinities of the high flow type flood bubblers which are activated multiple times per week along the ash and redwood tree root zones. As of the date of writing, These Areas Are Being Hand-Watered 2x/week (Winter & Spring, 2019-2020 watering regime) by Garden Hose Until a Bubbler System is Built Over-Grade: Areas being a. Trees along the east side of N. Wolfe Road (Alexander Steakhouse irrigated by trees). 70 to 100/o soil moisture as of 5/15/2020. 5 hand, 3x to (Various) b. Median trees along N. Wolfe Road, from the flyway to freeway 280 4x/week during (these trees are outside of our jurisdiction, per my discussion with Mike Summer& Fall. Rohde of SHPCO). But we are irrigating them anyway, as a courtesy. 70-100% soil moisture readings, as of 5/15/2020. c. Discretionary transplants#414, 415, 416, as noted above in Row#2 above (soil moisture not verified, due to lack of access). 6of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A Areas with RPZ fencing now include all of the following: a. West perimeter road, west side of road (previously installed). b. Stevens Creek Blvd. between North Wolfe Road and West Perimeter Road (previously installed). Chain link Root c. North Wolfe Road, north-south oriented line of trees, (the westmost row 6 Protection Zone (Various) only), abutted up against the Bay Club parking lot. This is a new area of (RPZ) Fencing tree fencing protection. The City of Cupertino has apparently requested that we do not install protection along the sidewalk row of trees, in order to maintain the area with a natural, "non-industrial" appearance. The sidewalk along the west side of N. Wolfe Road is currently accessible by pedestrians almost the entire distance from Stevens Creek Blvd to the North end of the Vallco project. d. North Wolfe Road, both sides of road, between the flyway bridge and freeway 280 (i.e. Alexander Steakhouse trees, and TGIF trees). Areas with trunk buffer wraps and wood overlay now include all of the following: a. West Perimeter Road trees that are adjacent to the west side of the roadway. b. North Wolfe Road trees that are adjacent to the old Alexander Steak House (east side of road). Trunk Buffer c. North Wolfe Road trees that are adjacent to the old TGI Fridays 7 Wraps with (Various) restaurant(west side of road). Wood Board Overlay d. North Wolfe Road discretionary transplants 260, 261. e. North Wolfe Road street trees south of the flyway bridge (i.e. along the old AMC movie theatre and Dynasty restaurant area), west side of street, only as far south as the old Bay Club parking lot entrance. f. Required transplant oaks#97, 98, 99 at the southwest corner of the Vallco site, as noted in row#97, 98, 99. The following tree areas have now been pruned by Tree Tech of San Jose, a tree service contractor, for horizontal and vertical roadway airspace clearance: Pruning for a. (Early 2019): West Perimeter Road trees being retained along the west Roadway& side of the road (pruned earlier in 2019). 8 Pathway (Various) b. (August, 2019): East perimeter Road trees being retained along the east Airspace side of the road. Clearance c. (September, 2019): Stevens Creek Blvd. ash trees, the northmost row overhanging the old Bay Club parking lot. d. (September, 2019): Trees along both sides of North Wolfe Road 7of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A between Stevens Creek Blvd. and freeway 280. e. (October, 2019): Trees along the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd, both the row overhanging the Bay Club parking lot and the row overhanging the westbound lane along the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. f. (October, 2019): The N. Wolfe Road median trees. g. (May, 2020): Live wood and foliage in the lower elevations of the canopies of redwood and ash tree specimens along West perimeter Road is being removed as an on-going process to clear the airspace of the north-south oriented walking path that extends north-south in orientation, parallel with the roadway. During a site drive-through with Mr. Mike Rohde of SHPCO in September, 2019, the following areas were approved by WLCA as zones where chipper truck- derived natural wood chips can be placed over the open soil landscape as a mulch surface treatment, using natural wood chips from pruning operations on the Vallco property, in order to provide a moisture barrier that will enhance the look of the landscape, provide minor weed blocking functions, increase soil moisture retention, and force a greater percentage of irrigation water downward into the soil profile around existing trees being retained: Thickness approved: Up to 4 inches. After reviewing the speed of wood chip degeneration over time, WLCA may increase this thickness specification accordingly. As of October and November, 2019, wood chip mulch skirts are approximately 2 Mulching with to 3 feet in radius, from the root crowns of the trees outward. Wood Chips 9 Derived from (Various) a. (September, 2019): West side of North Wolfe Road. Pruning Operations by b. (September, 2019): Stevens Creek Blvd. trees, between North Wolfe Tree Tech. Road and West Perimeter Road. c. (September and October, 2019): East perimeter Road, between freeway 280 and Vallco Parkway. Along the east side of road only. Mulch here covers the complete open soil root zones of the trees (see images below in this report). WLCA suggested to Mr. Mike Rohde of SHPCO on 4/15/2020 that excess wood chips on the Vallco site could be utilized by spreading them out as a 4 inch thick layer over the bare soil root zones of redwood and ash specimens at the "bend point" along West Perimeter Road (i.e. between roughly trees#704 and#724). This would act to reduce evaporation of soil moisture from the trees' root zones. This spreading activity is on-going as of May, 2020. Trees to monitor 10 for See right a. Ash tree#50 at the east end of the row of trees overhanging Stevens decline/death g Creek Blvd recently declined (see photo below in this report). WLCA over time, or suggested that SHPCO prune out deadwood throughout the tree's 8of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A simply remove canopy and monitor it to determine if it is still viable. The tree has now outright. been pruned as of October, 2019. b. Ash tree#763 on West Perimeter Road. Decline in this tree was noted earlier this year by WLCA. Tree Tech pruned the tree to reduce its height, and the tree is now"retrenching" with renewed vigorous sprout growth throughout the lower elevations (see photos below in this report). As of October, 2019, this tree is extending profuse new shoots and dense foliage as of October, 2019. As of 4/15/2020 the tree exhibits a dense canopy of new shoot and foliage growth. As of 5/15/2020 SHPCO plans to prune out lower elevation branches to clear the airspace around this tree. c. Redwood #804 just northwest of#763 on West Perimeter Road is developing a large number of dead and dying scaffold limbs throughout the canopy. The tree may need to be removed outright at some point in the near future. As of 5/15/2020, the neighbor just west of this tree apparently pruned out a large number of the dead scaffold limbs without permission, and allowed those branches to fall into our Vallco property area where they are now laying in the pathway between the redwood tree row and the ash tree row (see photos at end of this report). d. Redwoods #628 and #668.West Perimeter Road. e. Various trees near the PG&E vault work recently completed along West Perimeter Road (see separate vault area table below). f. Redwood grove of trees#500, 501, and#502 ("standard trees")were noted in the past to be dead or almost dead in 2018. These trees may still represent a significant risk to persons driving, walking, or working around the East Perimeter Road area. Although they are already permitted for removal as of the date of writing, they are still standing in the landscape as of 1/24/2020, since this eastmost section of Vallco is scheduled for demolition after the west portions of the Vallco lands. I suggest removing them as soon as possible, per WLCA letter dated 3/2/2020. g. Per the WLCA letter dated 3/2/2020, three additional trees in the "east portion of Vallco" are also dead, and should be removed as soon as possible: • Giant sequoia#430 (street tree). • Giant sequoia#434(street tree). • Coast redwood #479 (standard tree). 9of17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A PG&E high (Various, voltage vault per the Vaults along the north section of West Perimeter Road were completely 11 along West separate backfilled as of October, 2019. Perimeter Road ble below) The following is the table prepared by WLCA in January 2019 for the trees immediately surrounding the PG&E high voltage electrical underground upgrade work by Devcon that occurred in January 2019. The table was updated in April, 2019 based on WLCA's reassessment 4/26/19. Trees considered high risk or potentially high risk of failure and impact with ground targets are noted in the table with bold black and yellow highlight. PG&E VAULT AREA TREES/WEST PERIMETER ROAD Tree Tag Actual Root Plate Number Radius Remaining Overall Condition Rating (Measured in Feet,on WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree (South to (updates) Trench Face or Vault North) Excavation Side) 729 10 (feet) 727 8 724 6 10% Very Poor Potential removal 722 6 10% Very Poor Potential removal 721 6 10% Very Poor Potential removal 716 4 35% Poor Potential removal 714 3 15% Very Poor Potential removal 713 4 50% Fair 712 8 48% Poor 711 8 0% DEAD Suggest removal due to lack of vigor 710 8 50% Fair 708 6 25% Very Poor Potential removal 707 6 10%Very Poor Suggest removal due to lack of vigor 706 6 25% Very Poor Potential removal 734 (ash) 4 Potential removal. Monitor for decline or instability. 735 (ash) 4 Potential removal. Monitor for decline or instability. 736 (ash) 5 Potential removal. Monitor for decline. 737 (ash) 6 Potential removal. Monitor for decline. 738 (ash) 6 Potential removal. Monitor for decline. 739 (ash) 3 Potential removal. Monitor for decline or instability. 10 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A Tree Tag Actual Root Plate Number Radius Remaining Overall Condition Rating (Measured in Feet,on WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree (South to Trench Face or Vault (updates) North) Excavation Side) Very Poor. PGE excavation work encroached to within 1 foot of the root zone, within the I suggest we remove the tree at 674 (ash) 1 Critical Root Zone (CRZ), possibly resulting in this time for loss of roughly 30 to 40% of the original root safety purposes. system. I suggest removal of this tree for safety purposes. 65% Fair. Nice large redwood specimen of 30 inches diameter. Total root loss of as much as 20% or more, and recent trenching occurred within the 15 foot radius (Critical Root Zone) in 651 6-7 one quadrant of the root zone. Expect good survival, and little or no loss of stability, since excavation occurred only in the northeast section of the tree's root zone, and did not extend south of the trunk. 38% Poor. Tree exhibits extensive needle dieback 650 6-7 that is not related to the recent PGE vault excavation work within the east side of the tree's root zone. 649 7 50% Fair 648 10 30% Poor. Tree suppressed in shade of surrounding larger specimens. 65% Fair. Nice specimen of large proportions with 32 inch diameter trunk situated next to the Devcon Construction lockable chain link gate at the north end of Demolition Zone 1A. Critical Root Zone is 16 feet radius. Recent 647 8 to 10 feet trenching destroyed roots in the northmost half of this CRZ (i.e. within 8 to 10 feet of the trunk edge). Some possible loss of tree stability. Monitor tree for symptoms of decline or instability(e.g. soil cracking, trunk lean off from vertical, loss of vigor expressed as needle dieback, etc.). 646 7 40% Poor Suggest root crown excavation (RCX) using hand tools to remove excess soil piled over the buttress 645 6 to 7 feet 40% Poor root flares. This tree actually appears to be getting strangled by roots extending from ash tree #680 directly east from #645. 11 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A Tree Tag Actual Root Plate Number Radius Remaining Overall Condition Rating (Measured in Feet,on WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree (South to Trench Face or Vault (updates) North) Excavation Side) Suggest remove tree for safety purposes. Tree is at southeast corner of the new north-south oriented vault excavation area. 678 (ash) 1 foot High Risk As of October, 2019, this tree still remained in the landscape with 1 foot of radial root extension between the vault excavation face and the trunk edge. 679 (ash) 0 feet High Risk (Removed as of 2019). Potential removal for safety 680 (ash) 2 feet Possible High Risk purposes due to trench cut at 2 feet offset from buttress root edges. Remove now, or monitor. Digital Images Archived by WLCA/April & May 15, 2020 r � 5/15/2020 The southmost gate on the root protection zone 5/15/2020 Looking north along the West Perimeter Road fence that excludes pedestrians from entering the West walkway with redwoods and ash trees situated in a north- Perimeter Road walkway(near Stevens Creek) has been south orientation. As of May, 2020, SHPCO has mowed compromised due to homeless persons cutting into the grasses and other weeds that were growing tall inside this chain link material. It appears they are attempting to either root protection zone, and also removed thousands of use our tree root protection zone as a walkway route to sprouts arising from the bases of the redwood tree and from their encampment at N. Wolfe Road, and/or they specimens, thereby clearing the walkway, per WLCA's are attempting to sleep in this forested walkway at night request in April, 2020. due to its location out of sight of the security cameras situated throughout the Vallco project site. 12 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A - td.. f. 5/15/2020 5/15/2020 Limbs from redwood#804 on West Perimeter Road were Looking southward at the ash trees along N. Wolfe Road, pruned out of the west side of this tree's canopy by the with STEINS beer garden in the background. Note how neighboring property owner, and dropped onto Vallco green and lush the turf grass groundcover is along the Property, all without permission from Vallco. This tree was planting strip between the sidewalk and the roadway, in severe decline, and exhibited a large number of dead indicating very high volume of irrigation water application and dying scaffold limbs. The trunk of tree#804 can be that has boosted soil moisture very significantly. seen at the upper left hand corner of this image. ` .. Al Looking southwest at the ash tree specimens lining WPR, , in the area south of the "bend" in the road. The spring push of new twig extension and foliar expansion is The redwoods at"the bend" in the road at WPR were noticeably good this year. suffering severely for years due to drought. In some respect, they are recovering at this time, albeit slowly and reluctantly, as seen above. At least one of the redwoods, tree#711 shown below left, has died, and will be removed 13 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A Looking southwest at the ash trees and redwood trees lining the northmost section of WPR. The ash trees in this image (e.g. trees#684 to#704)will be removed to Redwood #711 has died and will eventually need to be accommodate new sewer pipe installation. removed, at the "bend" in the road at WPR. r Looking westward at the redwood specimens along WPR, w at the northwest corner of the project where a joint trench will be installed using "directional tunneling"to avoid cutting the roots of these trees in the corner area. East Perimeter Road, looking southward along the property line of the Apple property where it adjoins Vallco property. These trees are provided with over-grade high flow type piped irrigation that is activated multiple times per each week. 14 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A F Homeless encampment along N. Wolfe Road, looking Homeless encampment. Looking northward along the northward. The tree in the foreground is ash#431. camp which covers the entire open soil root zone of tree #428. - Li XYAYirina ,L Homeless encampment close-up of tree#428 lower Another view of the homeless encampment along N. elevations. Wolfe Road, looking northward at the southbound onramp to freeway 280. The tree in the foreground is#428. The tree in the background is outside of our Vallco tree study population area. 15 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A s 5/15/2020 View of the N. Wolfe Road Homeless Encampment, looking southeast. The camp appears to have expanded since my last Vallco site visit 4/15/2020. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct.Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character.Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean,under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinance,statutes,or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however,the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made,including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise,the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed,without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise,neither all nor any part of the contents of this report,nor copy thereof,shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client,to the public through advertising, public relations, news,sales,or other media,without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser,or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser,and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value,a stipulated result,the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches,drawings,and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids,are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise.The reproduction of any information generated by engineers,architects, or other consultants on any sketches,drawings,or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. 16 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection;the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection,excavation, probing,or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee,expressed or implied,that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge,training,and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees,and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees.Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist,or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground.Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances,or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine,cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning,and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership,site lines,disputes between neighbors,and other issues.Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist.An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled.To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk.The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. 9M Walter Levison Certification WE-3177A I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true,complete,and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,and are made in good faith. IsncenMied ArbansM W run 2a2b SiqVatur sultant MTA R"Assmssme lMwKmd 22run2023 r Levison, Consu I borist Internadonal Sodetyof ArbNieN m Attached: 1. Tree Map (OLIN), Full Site (Latest Update: May, 2020) 2. Tree Data Table (WLCA) (Latest Update: 5/15/2020) 17 of 17 Walter Levison©2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member,American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell(415)203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(a)yahoo.com 1 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 — i LEGEND i" APPLE - - PROPERTY LINE (NOT IN SCOPE) - - PROPERTY LINE AFTER DEDICATION i / o — GARAGE EXTENTS STRUCTURE TOWN CENTER r-----—1 STRUCTURE ABOVE A L-----J TAG# ❑ EXISTING STANDARD TREE TO REMAIN 334 OWNER-VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER LLC. 965 PAGE MILL ROAD, PALO ALTO,CA 94304 TAG# T.650-344-1500 / %/ 0EXISTING STANDARD TREE TO BE REMOVED 374 ARCHITECTURE-RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS 50 VANDAM STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10013 1 i T.212-924-5060 TAG# EXISTING TREE 11 ARCHITECTURE-RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS TO BE TRANSPLANTED 1033 N.WOLFE ROAD,CUPERTINO,CA 95014 �C/��,`� T.408-627-7090 TAG# �Q C co 0D o> (N � M '1 DEVELOPMENT TREE TO BE REMOVED 90 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE OLIN PARTNERSHIP LTD. "' I ci 04 Lo `9 `'' , `�".'I c' ,f�,' "' "' co ;� " "' "' `' `o `0 'o °° �' 1 1 ? 150 S, INDEPENDENCE MALL W.SUITE 1123, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 Lo N� LL — ��._.l ? J >� �.:=� --•— . — 0[ 77-77-77--a TAG# T.214-440 0030 \ 1 1 \f ! 1 1 1 l My EXISTING STREET TREE TO REMAIN 113 CIVIL-SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS, INC. Ncli V ��r T E T )N � � 1700 S.WINCHESTER BLVD,SUITE 200, CAMPBELL,CA 95008 — N M y v r` 0 rn o ,n N _� .a M co m o �i n o o TAG# co - x T.408-636 0900 co O O O M M M V CS) 0D co� M\ M X M M �i M `�' x�� x \ X y h \ f i to �) \ EXISTING STREET TREE TO BE REMOVED 73 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING-ARUP NORTH AMERICA, LTD. r M� M M c"2 M O 1� O ,T� .�� m coct. CO M M �t o r (v� M x � >r., �,_�� .. _ _ ® I � 560 MISSION STREET,SUITE 700,SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105 lam �(x — ( x III T.415-957 9445 X X M LCJ M I • 6j' '� 0-) co I II o TOTAL TREE 995 04_ t t N v� 1 k LIGHTING -ONE LUX STUDIO �j' N a, o o Lo j `r 158 WEST 29TH STREET, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10001 C14fo co x B r x "' T.212-201 5790 i coM — M x O o FOR DETAILS OF EXISTING TREE CONDITIONS,SEE ARBORIST REPORT, SIGNAGE-EX:IT / x (�M M X X BLOCK 1 1 DATED JUNE 14,2019,PREPARED BY WALTER LEVISON,CONSULTING 1617 JFK BLVD, SUITE 1665, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 N N 4JJ Lo x �, I ARBORIST(WLCA). T.215-561-1950 M x �, M _ I I I PARKING ENGINEERING-WATRY DESIGN, INC. x 127I 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550,SAN JOSE,CA 95110 X X �� x T.408 392-7900 M o MLo 1128 vi cl)— \ X ---- o — 129 �, STREET ~ 0 0 —�_ o NOT IN SCOPE 0 i t M I o 1130''' o N x 1 1 El M _ ~ co )( N � N M 0 co ❑ LL. LU� M�Lu < X x � � co co o w � 11a 00 a cl) Lu El El co ui BLOCK 10 M N ❑❑ ❑ c BLOCK 9 I I j / et N� M co M M x , ❑ El El I I J w ❑ ❑ Q X ❑❑❑❑ ❑ > El 1131 000��00El � HYATT HOTEL �0�000��0 co \ o O O N r� M 6) o 0 0 NOT IN SCOPE �_ r � o p p ( ) _ , rn o-v - o -`� -� �� - can o STREET MAdlbk V V 3,) o 0 0 f?) )) x i M 1132 ® • _____ M N O O CD N II Lo N x 7) BLOCK 8 BLOCK 7 ~ 133 Lu D A 0 U-, U \ x v 0 o 4 v �_ NV X 0 CO W M V • I I 1 1 O V M X O � ww O N V � CD O N V x Lo CO CO M V CD f� r- r- � icc • � � \ X c c < < < c r ' �, _�, _ _ Lo ,� o �, �, PROPERTY LINE it c c c c c c c It 0 PROPERTY LINE rn 0 �� e M o AFTER DEDICATION 0 0 0 0 0. � ......... --N �-' -- -__ -- - -___ -_ o, O o WOLFE ROAD 0 c GARAGE EXTENTS o o o~N A o'' • o X\ 1 J \\ = o 0 ----_- ----_-- N WOLFE ROAD o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ _ _ _ o o .__. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ o 0 0 -_-- (V CV O o o W N N N r iF o '.. O M N M f0-_.--...___. 1 I I lA M Cfl --__-------- --------- --------- --------- ---------0 0 c r __ r -__ r___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ --------- o. ---- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ --- o C^ �7-► V M _- OD ti coCO (p O M o r i o o O O O O � _ lA tq --.--- -- - N cn -- Uc cXJ M N M M M r� O Ncli N► o x ) ) IIII M N N - N N N N M N _ o N N N \ - • • :u�� ----_ N �� N N � � l Iy 1 1. _ M � - '; o'� N X � x O 5 -,��"�.'�' t:4�' � � I I - X = - a __ _ 0 0 0 0 � co N o 0 PROPERT IN _ (E '`[ EDICA 10\ l' 11 1 ( L / cam - co K �I M \ — 4 �- 1 I 4 � — r. — -- � — — — — — — �� — — — — — — — � 0 r` � o � GARAGE EXTENTS — — • .. a ,, — — — — — — — N E I+�► _ \ N M O 6�N N - 2 co LC') / N N N N I`N M -� Fo' x x x O� N O 1 1 M x e-- N 6 f J�/CV Il Il � ----- N N i ACV N 1 1 �,'..n r M M M M F► � x p X O r r• i X- r r r r r r r X Mcy) N x N N r J 0 x M • r . �• / N N ` W o L~L.I V cfl o H W rn W \ N M .O .O rO N r\/ o N W 0 0 x r- w X_ co N W M M (O O l\ V N � � �� O x CO (\J) 6 x Wo o f co BLOCK 6 N X x BLOCK 5 LBLOCK 4 x x x X X r r ',. M X. O M 00 CD OM M X o N N CO BLOCK 4 �� I G: O N O M M (p M ti O X M X X ([)N N I_l lI_ 1 1 1 ® X Cfl• 0� M O x O X 1 1 _ _ 1 1 �� _ n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �I M e� � � I I n 1 _ N �� I O Ji..... � � co ^ M0 M O X N �� Lf) r n r❑ O (LOD r M X n DISCLAIMER N N N c� %(o y/ o o M � r x n THE ARCHITECT I ENGINEER SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY ----. --- �J c� c$ o o c$ r c- r---- --------- r a$ 1 X X x r c$ c� o 0 0 o o o o 0 o M N c2 -- c>g c>g w o 0 FOR ANY E o �' o 0 ao FROM OR RELATING ING T00 ANY OUSE OF THGS DOCUMENT FOR ANY o �, STREET C 0 0 ► rk) 8) o �) ►' ', o T T �i O O i x 00000 o T co M w PURPOSE OTHER THAN ITS INTENDED PURPOSE ON THIS • O co PROJECT. THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN 000M � CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELATED DOCUMENTATION.ANY 1 -� «, I DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE CN REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE F ° x 0 ( M M PROCEEDING. CONTRACTORS MUST VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS r °° co �a 1 "' L� PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.ONLY FIGURED w � x r 00 (x\ DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR VERIFICATION. WOLFE PROPERTIES L O ! r N NOT IN SCOPE) I w N BLOCK 3 W , W. BLOCK 2 w �� BLOCK 2 M �IT) W W W N M _rn r x o ) F- Cn cn rn rn x h. W O N T) �X L LLJr � M m SB-35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION o 0 x p N r X _ _ :�- 1 -� 1 �- 1 �o a �a �o N N N N coce) cli M N - -- X� V N O 00 .0 ^ co CO - N❑ ❑ ❑ -� • x x x N N M N M M x 00 M M co r r N N r x x x O x N N r r r ^� X �� r X r r 0 �/ Jae x x :,` i� o o .�<2 M STREET B (r> ct o o ��ct cC — o o cc N w L.L., NO �= W x � x '. x �pOD � � _. v`"�� 1 X 1 _Jl X I x � � _ o -------- �-_ ____ ____ O ____ ......... ____ o o ____ __-__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ___ ...... .....___- - ____-_ --_. ____ 0 0 _ � v i M $) )'D o 91) O &) 4 \ - — m _ r a > REV DESCRIPTION DATE C= N 8 i o o � x � N CD / co M W O OD co co M ?�- 0D r- c f� N M n X I f v .. v r \ f \ �r co ;, J n REV-0 SB 35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 03127/2018 ' AA d 't 1 X \ x I x I X 1 X I (X 1 (x 1 Y f \ 1 /�\ � 1 - � 0 r w lw r n REV-1 SB 35 APPLICATION REVISIONS 08/06/2018 REV-2 SB-35 APPLICATION CONFORM SET 09/15/2018 N,VMN NCr)�tnCp f�00 6)O�NM (p C0 MO iT O M W r j n t`I�I�f� � �� I�CDCD DODO �'VMV�fJ(01�0o6)Or coVIfJCOI�ODOOrN �lC)(Cj r�0o0�0 �(OI�0o00rN lfJ CO Mal _ ,.- M V M n M MMM Cf') (f') to L!')(f')(f')Cf') �f')tntn(f')(f') coM00 a0 0o0o IT O 6)6�06)6�6)6)00 OOOOOOOrrr O•-N MV,.fl cD f�M r O Cf')L!')(f')tntn(f')(f') lf�Cf')(f')�Cf')�tnCOCO COCO(OCOCOCO(OCOCOCO (OCOCO co(OCOC'4 CO CVNCVNNMMM M M MM V•7V V�tV V VV 00 r1)rNCO"T �cor- 0D 6�OGNM V�(D~a00 ��CO(OCOCO(O(OCOCO (O Co CO CO CO (O CO(OCO CO CocoLnLn Lo Locococo-Z Co CO(O(O(O CO(O CCi CO CO(OCO COCO COM (O��r- �� OLIJ I H N CN CIO C) 114 o Cn p o Z 0 o Z. D, co w BLOCK 1 113 I LLl (n 11 o �\� 112 X o I 10 ❑ 9 0 0 LoC co J r� Low ® 7 ❑1220 f �, ° N.WOLFE ROAD M 01219 © 0 J M Y r w �1217 0I w Z - - 1 w N °O rn O 1216 o O r ti CO Lc") M (v O - O M V M co M M M M M M M M N r - 61 O M ^ �_._- --.CO CD r- `- N X M x X r N x X x xx x x X ❑0 X x X1215 x x j �o rn KEY PLAN AND NORTH ARROW M -� 11 � LLI N 04 04 r X o L STREET A(PERIMETER RD.) �r co �, i; 0 ti -___________-_ -------------_________________.__.--------_---_--- x X ARCHITECTS PROJECT NUMBER 708011 v r- r co o r- r� r_ (r> r� «' o v v w rx _:'� -- I n Y 1 1 I( 1 I i ! 11 1 f 1 ( 1 ( �r N /� 1 — — — — ----------L � ( C\`�_�\'w �C _ (\ PROJECT PHASE: SB 35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION } ( f ( f •( •l 1K ( ( ( I I 11 1 • 1 r'I1 1 t l I I I} 1 1 'Tl ) I l X—• I l I ) ( I— I I I T I 1 1 11 1 1 11 I U I I - v N N�ti_ IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 36"x48"IT IS A REDUCED PRINT; ( — i w n CN REFER TO GRAPHIC SCALE r 6)O V r-r-r-OD 6)O-VM VCO r-0D6� M Vr.(JC01�0D6)Or NMV �(OI�00 rN M��(OI�aD OrNM�Y �(OI�OD OrN MVIfXO r` O� OrN M��(fll� 6�Or(v MV�(DI� 6) r CO CO CO r NM �� a000 0o 0oca 00000o O o-'mm6)6�000 000 0000 cD rrrrrr N(VCVCVCV CVNCVCV MMM MMMC`'M OM M VVV�VVVV VLoCoLo LOLOLOLOUl � M co � n tititi ti titi ti��ti��MaO 0D0DOD ODODODO0 Oo ODO0 000000000000 OoODODODOo 00000000 0D0D0D 00000000 00 M MMM o0 o0MMM MpaDM MMMMoO coaD n 0 32' 64' 128' 192' SCALE: 1/64"=1'-0" EAST WEST BANK DE NZA PROPER S ( OT IN SCO E) TREE DISPOSITION PLAN VALLGO rFn OT IN SCOPE O SHEET TITLE: O CD P � 0602B LLL SHEET NUMBER: I © 2018 RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS PCI Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 L O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. rL Q O Z to FL E O ,c M + 0 N cn > =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ O O ^ >, W L 'N .- % Ratings & NOTES 2017 o m o � � cn � � .� ^ .-. .-. .-. .� � � + H a� m � c� cn � c� � � }, � }, � � � 3 � � � WLCA Notes from 0o � � c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca c.) Z cZ Cn M La O - N a 9 � � a� � •L � (Genus, species) � cn o � � � > ° c� � > ca �a .� a� � � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W W ° •� L C� °' m o '� x T p g Y ONWARD ca > ♦, a� v c� ca o - a _ -W � W p W 2 v L U ++ N M CO G� G� N S \ J 'i G� O O ' W ° O ° O ca ca 1 1 N t, O � CD 0 _ s «i O ca H U �C v O G� to to L N �+ O - O H ca L r E '++ ',+y+ > ,,0 L_ ``� L_ N - O ``� 'MML- WW1 �O/ O M •C� > v O �O/ mac ) 0 L O O '(� L O L L L L L L 0. L Q O 'a) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � Z 0 Z Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = v� _ � .� .� `. 1 X 13.0 13.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/18 20/30 25% very poor 6 11 X Removed as of Jan, 2020. poor 2 X 10.9 40.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/20 50/35 40% poor a moderate a a a a M 76 a M a a a M a M a Removed as of Jan, 2020. 3 X 13.9 13.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/25 60/45 50% fair moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. 4 X 16.6 16.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/30 55/60 57% fair moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. O 5 X 22.0 22.0 Fraxinus uhdei Shamel ash 45/45 75/60 66 /o fair good 12 Removed as of Jan, 2020. 6 X 13.3 13.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/15 50/35 43% poor moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. X 2 .6 27.6 Montereyine Pinus racata 55/30 65/65 65% fair moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. ; Tree appears to be declining in o Needs endweight live twig density due to 8 X 19.9 19.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 70/60 64 /o fair moderate W prolonged Bay Area drought reduction pruning conditions. Current condition is approximately 40% or "poor'. 9 X 26.2 26.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 60/50 55% fair poor to mod GR Needs endweight reduction pruning Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 10 27.0 27.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/50 55% fair poor to mod N prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 40% or "poor". Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 11 X 28.8 28.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/60 60% fair moderate S GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 37% or "poor". ree appears to be cleclining in live twig density due to prolonged Bay Area drought 12 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 55/50 53% fair poor to mod E conditions. Current conditionis approximately 25 /0 or very poor". Trees in very poor condition are generally Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 13 X 22.2 22.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 60/50 55% fair poor to mod S prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 37% or "poor'. 1 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r E 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = v) _ � .� .� .� `. `. .� `. Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 14 24.7 24.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/28 60/60 60% fair moderate N prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 40% or "poor' . 15 24.6 24.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 60/45 55% fair moderate N Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 16 20.6 20.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 55/55 55% fair moderate N prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 42% or "poor' . Tree appears to be declining in 0% dead (not live twig density due to 17 17.7 17.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 0/0 verified) S prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor'. Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 18 31 .6 31 .6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 65/48 59% fair moderate N GR 10 to 12 prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 48% or "poor' . Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 19 18.2 18.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 60/50 55% fair moderate S prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor' . 20 21 .5 21 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 55/55 55% fair poor to mod 21 17.0 17.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/20 50/60 55% fair moderate S GR 22 32.3 32.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/50 75/65 70% good good NE Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 23 24.5 24.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 65/40 50% fair moderate S 30 GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 45% or "poor' . 24 29.7 29.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 65/50 60% fair moderate N GR Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 25 X 20.7 20.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 55/45 50% fair moderate SE 30 serious GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 50% or "fair". Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 26 X 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/35 50/50 50% fair moderate N GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 45% or "poor". 2 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 L C� Ln L N O L �+ a. rL � � E Q O Z N a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N 0 - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ O o W ^ >, L - 'N ._ % Ratings & NOTES 2017 om o � � cn � � .� ^ .� � U + Hai m � 0 c� � � }, }, � � 3 WLCA Notes from 0 c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ L C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 � L U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 1 N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q to to L G� L L > �_ •� = C _ _ E Q O C V ' � = O L. �' N 0 0 }' Q r V �' ° O = }; }' aL,, - O L �+ E O — O H ca L 'a 0 L ca '++ �/+ > G� ,,O^^ L ``� L c/� — O ``� '� moo/ G� O •C� > V O �0 �N/ 0 L O 0 O '(� L Q L L L L L L �' 0. L Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W e LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL 0! C/)H H U Q o� a- w L a � �— H H H H H a 0 Ln cU O `. E cn a = cn = .� .� .� .� .� _ .� `. Tree was significantly damaged by a City-hired contractor performing directional bore and other electrical utility related work along Stevens Creek Blvd in June and July, 2019. The 27 X 25.8 25.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 65/50 57% fair moderate S crew somehow scarred the lower trunk of this tree (see image in WLCA's July, 2019 inspection report). However, the tree is slated for removal anyway per the Vallco project team tree disposition sheet. Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 28 36.9 36.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/40 75/45 60% fair good N GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 45% or "poor". Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 29 32.3 32.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/35 70/50 60% fair good S GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 50% or "fair". 30 29.5 29.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/40 60/55 59% fair good NE Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is 31 X 6.3 6.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 18/10 40/30 35% poor moderate S BRC Stunted approximately 25% or "very poor". Trees in very poor overall condition are generally considered good candidates for removal from the landscape, since their ability to recover to 32 17.9 17.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 60/40 50% fair moderate N Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 33 26.0 26.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 60/50 57% fair moderate GR Diameter estimated. prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 40% or "poor' . Tree appears to be declining in Tree out of leaf. live twig density due to 34 24.0 24.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 50/40 45% poor ? S 9 Condition prolonged Bay Area drought estimated. conditions. Current condition is approximately 40% or "poor". 35 23.3 23.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 60/55 57% fair moderate N 36 X 26.6 26.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/45 65/60 63% fair moderate 37 X 32.9 32.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/35 70/60 65% fair good N 3 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r E 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = v) _ W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 38 X 18.2 18.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 65/50 56% fair moderate S Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 39 X 23.0 23.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 65/50 57% fair good N GR Diameter estimated. prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 45% or "poor' . Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 40 X 28.2 28.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/45 60/45 52% fair moderate S 25 GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor' . 41 18.3 18.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 60/50 55% fair moderate NE Tree appears to be declining in 28% very live twig density due to 42 6.5 6.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 20/8 30/25 poor poor S S prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor'. 43 24.0 24.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 65/60 63% fair good N GR Diameter estimated. 44 30.7 30.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 65/45 55% fair good S GR Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 45 18.0 18.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 50/50 50% fair poor to mod N prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 40% or "poor' . 46 30.5 30.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 65/45 55% fair good S GR 7 to 9 47 26.0 26.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 70/60 67% fair good N Diameter estimated. Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 48 31 .6 31 .6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/55 57% fair mod to good S GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor". 49 24.5 24.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 55/55 55% fair moderate N Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to 50 39.5 39.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 55/55 55% fair moderate E serious GR prolonged Bay Area drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor". 4 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � CD U O O O ca ca e N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 O/ E Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q Q O '4) Q 0 M O > 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 M � � Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn r = v� _ � .� . . `. `. . `. 51 TREE REMOVED. r .. 7: , ., / / 52 TREE REMOVED. 53 16.9 16.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 65/60 63% fair good E E 60% Fair. Same condition as previously noted in past years. Tree appears to be declining from prolonged Bay Area 54 31 .6 31 .6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 60/50 55% fair moderate W GR drought conditions. Current condition is approximately 35% or "poor". 55 21 .8 21 .8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 65/60 60% fair good Tree declining moderately. 56 18.3 18.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 55/55 55% fair moderate W Overall condition is now roughly 50% (Fair). 57 19.5 19.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 65/60 63% fair good E 58 26.4 26.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/55 58% fair moderate W 59 33.8 33.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/50 55% fair good E 11 60 24.9 24.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/35 65/55 60% fair good W 61 24.4 24.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 60/60 60% fair moderate E 62 27.9 27.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 50/50 50% fair poor to mod W 63 31 .5 31 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 70/65 68% fair good 5 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 64 20.8 20.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 50/50 50% fair poor to mod W 65 20.7 20.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 65/53 55% fair good E GR 66 37.8 37.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/25 70/63 68% fair good W 67 18.3 18.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 65/65 65% fair moderate W possible bark 68 X 41 .0 41 .0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/50 60/55 58% fair mod to good NW inclusion issues 69 to transplant 19.4 19.4 holly oak Quercus ilex 45/20 60/60 60% fair moderate W 70% overall condition "good' . 70 to transplant 13.2 13.2 holly oak Quercus ilex 25/20 60/60 60% fair moderate W 65% overall condition "fair' . 71 40.8 40.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/45 65/55 60% fair good 10 72 24.3 24.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 55/50 50% fair moderate E serious GR 73 26.2 26.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 50/50 50% fair poor W 16 74 28.0 28.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/60 60% fair moderate E 75 21 .4 21 .4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 50/50 50% fair moderate W 76 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/18 40/50 47% poor poor to mod E 6 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O to a E O ,c s + 0 N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a }, }, � -W3 � r- � WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + O - O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 77 15.8 15.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/15 40/30 35% poor poor W 78 17.0 17.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 65/40 50% fair moderate serious GR 79 21 .2 21 .2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 55/55 55% fair poor to mod W GR 80 28.2 28.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 60/50 55% fair moderate E 81 24.7 24.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 55/50 53% fair moderate W 82 19.0 19.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/20 45/50 49% poor poor to mod E 83 17.8 17.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 60/55 57% fair moderate W 84 21 .2 21 .2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/30 55/55 55% fair moderate E 85 20.3 20.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 65/60 65% fair moderate to W good 86 23.2 23.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 65/50 58% fair good GR 87 22.8 22.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 65/55 60% fair mod to good NW 88 X 5.9 5.0 4.9 15.8 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 9/11 65/65 65% fair moderate ID of species not verified 89 X 23.5 23.5 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis 45/18 80/75 78% good good 0 to 4 Removed as of Jan, 2020. 7 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � ca � 3 in a > 'gin _ ca � _ �' CL -0-^ -- a) s cn > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L � }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- �. >► _ N '� •- = W Ratings & NOTES 2017 a `� _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca �' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O =_ = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ +�.+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O ONN p L O Q� O 'M i O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q 0 ca o > LL J > 0 J � � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL � Z U G � = Z 0 I. ) �Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. ID of species not verified. Tree 90 X X 16.0 16.0 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 18/25 30/30 30% poor moderate GR appears to be Removed as of Jan, 2020. infected b pine pitch canker f. ngu Tree has bark beetle H a M& o issues and/or pine_ P�nus rac�ata 9� X X 2®.4 0.4 Mor�tere ine 5/25 40/4� 40 poor poor to mod W Removed as of Jam 20�. /o Y p p pitch canker a .... ... infection. r a H N r m ara zma era ua mz �a rya a�a a�;x :... rea era mx Cu anio sis p p 0 carrbtwod or 15 /o Ary 92 X X 15.5 15.5 carob tree anacardioides, poor or 20/15 25/10 poor to mod W 0 to 8 Removed as of Jan, 2020. Ceratonia siliqua ua sis carrotwood, or Cu panio p 93 X 11 .6 11 .6 anacardioides, or 20/15 50/30 45% poor moderate 4 to 7 Removed as of Jan, 2020. c rob t e "Ceratonia u slyq carrotwood, or Cupaniopsis o :� :� �anaca�-d�o�cees o � _< Y;::: X 13.0 13.0 �0/20 45/3i 40 ®or oo to mod 6 to 12 Removed as of Jam 2020. carob tree Ceratonia siliqua Active crack is opened. Tree 95 X X 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 35.0 11 carrIbtwo0d, or 0 anacardioides, or 20/20 65/10 30% poor good 1 considered, Removed as of Jan, 2020. carob tree Ceratonia siliqua extreme risk of failur . Remove ASAP. 96 X 34.0 34.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 65/55 57% fair good X Removed as of Jan, 2020. 97 to transplant X 15.3 15.3 holly oak Quercus ilex 20/25 75/75 75% good good 80% overall condition "good" 98 to transplant X 14.0 14.0 holly oak Quercus ilex 25/25 75/75 75% good good 70% overall condition "good" 99 to transplant X 11 .6 11 .6 holly oak Quercus ilex 22/20 70/70 70% good moderate 78% overall condition "good" o ID of species not 1 0 X X 13.3 2.3 Mo terey ine Pin s ra 'ata 8/15 R 50/5,0 0 /o f it m derate SE 1 demo ed a of Jan, 20 0. m M M m Verified. 161 X 16.0 16.0 Monterey pine Pinus rad iata 28/20 50/60 50% fair moderate emoved as of Jan, 2020. 102 25.9 25.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 50/35 40% poor moderate X 12 8 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z _ z a o •- ^ >► N '� •- = cn Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � � Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •S � � C� a�i 0 � fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� W 0 J v O O X 'p > ♦, v +� ca a..� c a W p W 2 t� O O p V O 1 N Q +�+ O r = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ +�.+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O p I- I ca " � � _ M Ta � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L O 0. 'L OC NO a� O � 'C� > v O O WN/ p L O Q� O '(Q L O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q G� ca o O LL J > V J 0 _ Z 0 a m m LL Z 0 G = Z 0 Q: Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C� O ... E w a = c� _ � `. `. `. `. �. 103 24.7 24.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 50/40 45% poor moderate E X 9 104 16.5 16.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 55/50 50% fair moderate E E X Needs endweight reduction pruning 105 16.0 16.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 45/45 45% poor moderate E X 4 106 X 21 .7 21 .7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 60/50 55% fair good X X 107 X 19.4 19.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 60/45 55% fair moderate S X 108 X 15.9 15.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/30 55/55 55% fair poor to mod Removed as of Jan, 2020. 109 X 14.4 14.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 40/40 40% poor poor to mod N Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« 110 X 10.9 8.9 0 0 Sh mel ash «« Fraxinus dei 5/30 - 40/39 5% ppor poor 11X a a a a m a R JZemoyed a of Jam, 202.0. 1 ' 1 X X 2 .7 19.7 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 45/35 60/55 7% fair moderate Measured at 2 feet. removed as of Jan, 2010. a a «« m a0 a atX 'aa Sr0 as «« 0 'aa � :u�`a «« «� m,c � at�ii .... .... at�i'. «a «« m � m 9t�`ot .... .... 112 X X 19.1 19.1 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 25/18 0/0 0% Dead Removed as of Jan, 2020. 25% very Bark beetle issues 113 X X 2 .0 15.E « 43.0 Mortereyine Pins radata 0/20 25/ pooh door W end/off pine pitch,,, emoyed a of Jam, 20?0. canker fungus. N W «« P a a a a a a a a a a a a a a P P. m « « «« 1 4 X X 4 .0 1 .0 Monterey pine Pinus ra iata 5/35 55/45 0% fair moderate S easured at 2 feed emoved as of Jan, 2o2b. 115 X 19.8 19.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 50/40 43% poor poor to mod E X Removed as of Jan, 2020. 9 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L Q � � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ M °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 a `� _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve cA _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q a. O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ E O p I- Ica " � � _ ca m � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L t/� O a. = 'L OC NO a� O M 'C� > v O O WN/ a L O 0 O � 'M L O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > 0 J � � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL � Z U G � = Z 0 l ) �H Ht) Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... E _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. 116 X 12.7 12.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 45/50 47% poor poor to mod X Removed as of Jan, 2020. « « « «« « «« « « «« « « «« 1 ' 7 X 1�4.4 4.4 Shamel ash Fraxdnus uhdei 5/25 40/4=5 45% poor poor to mod � � � X , � removed as of October/Nov 's «« «� «« uR «« spa �� 's «« efa � 2018 per plan. «« «« «« rmovd as 6f Octber/Iov 118 X 7.9 7.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/15 30/30 30% poor poor X 2018 per plan. «« «« «« 119 X 10.3 10.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/20 45/50 48% poor poor to mod E X removed as of October/Nov «« «« 3 «« g018 per plan. «« a a a a a a a a a w M a a 0 r. 120 X 14.4 41 .4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei a a 25/20 40/30 37% poor poop to mod a E M a a a a M NX a a a a a a removed as of October/Nov per plan. « «121 X 10.9 10.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 60/50 57% fair mod to good E X removed as of October/Nov2018 plan. Ian. p «« «« «« 122 X 8.3 8.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/15 40/30 30% poor poor E GR removed as of October/Nov «« «« € « «« 2018 per plan. «« a a M M a a a a a w w M a 12x3 a X M a a X a a a M 3Q.1 0.1 a a x 0 0 coa t redWood Sequoi sem ervir ns 0/25 30/3,0 30% ppor a poor M M M$ X a a X a M a w JZemoyed a$ of J4p, 20 0. 55% fair (? Tree condition 114 X 2 .9 12.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 60/50 Tree is dR needs to be verified emoved as of Jan, 2010. leafless). after spring leafout. a a «« a «a «« ma «« M «�a m " a a mz 'M 0 M asa a 0 MM m 0 a atMa a a a w aSr0 «,tea «« 0a a aM 'aa 'a M M -M :u�`aa a «« a IN 0 125 X 24.9 24.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 40/40 40% poor poor GR X Removed as of Jan, 2020. 116 X 13.0 « 2.0 S"mel psh Fra nus hdei 50/20 R 30/" 0% p or poor E X fZemo ed al of Jan, 20ZO. «« « «« y< d :.::::: :::::: 5.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 5/35 45/ 0% fair moderate E E R X emoved as of Jan, 202b. «« «« «< « « «« 128 X 19.4 19.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 40/50 42% poor poor E X Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« « «« 10 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a — ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 a `� _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � � Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca �' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS to \ — `� W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q a. O =_ = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O p I- I ca " � � _ M Ta � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L t/� O 0. 'L OC NO a� O � 'C� > v O O WN/ p L O Q� O '(Q L O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q G� ca o O LL J > V J 0 _ z 0 a m m LL z 0 G = z DC H Ht� Q � aWIL a . H H H H H H QDo C� O ... � w _ = c� _ � `. `. `. `. �. 129 X 4.0 4.0 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 15/3 70/50 55% fair moderate X Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per « «« « «« «« parking level. plan. Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per 130 X 0 «« 4.0 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior15/3 70/50 i5% fair moderate X «« parking level. plan. «« «« ° «« Located at P1 removed as of t)Ct/N V 2M per 131 X 4.2 4.2 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 15/3 70/50 55% fair moderate X parking level. plan. «« «« «« M 132 X 4.4 4.4 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 15/3 70/50 55% fair moderate X Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per «« «« a « « «« « parking IVeI. pla «« «« « ° Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per 13�3 X 3 «« 4.3 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior15/3 70/50 �5 /° fair moderate X parking leovel. pan « ° Located at P1 removed s of Oct/Nav 20' per 134 X 4.0 4.0 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 15/3 70/50 55% fair moderate X parking . plan. Ian. «« «« «« «« 135 X 4.8 4.8 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 15/3 70/50 55% fair moderate X Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per parking level. plan. 116 a X M a a a a 467 7 f rn i e P doc us racili r 15/3 70/ 5% f it m erat Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per «« pl"p g �« q parking Ivel. plan. «« ° «« parking . p Located at P1 removed s of Oct/Nev 20' per 117 X 4.6 4.6 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 15/3 70/5 -55% fair moderate arkin level x Ian. 138 X 7.8 4.9 12.7 Ficus species Ficus sp. 20/12 70/50 55% fair moderate X Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per parking level. plan. « «« «« « «« «« ° Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per 1 9 X 8 4.' 0.9 Figs species Ficus s 0/12 70/5.p 55 /° fair moderat «« parking Iel. ptan. «« ° «« « Located at P1 « removed gas of Oct/Nov 200IJ8 per 1 0 X 8 « 6.8 Ficus species Ficus sp. 10/12 70/5 55 /° fair moderate parking level. plan. « « « « « 141 X 5.9 3.7 9.6 Ficus species Ficus sp. 20/12 70/50 55% fair moderate X Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per parking level. plan. 11 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � ca � 3 in a > 'gin _ ca � _ �' CL -0-^ -- a) s cn > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L � }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- �. >► _ N '� •- = cn Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve � v) _ � � � � � ar � __ � � > _ � Uo � o � � o � o � W0 o •_ � � C� a�i0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O =_ = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ +�.+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O ONN p L O 0 O � 'M i O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > V J 0 � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL u) Z 0 G � = Z 0 I. ) u) H F- Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. Xi 142 X 5.0 4.3 9.3 Ficus species Ficus sp. 20/12 70/50 55% fair moderate X Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per ar in level. n. p g p ° Located at P1 removed as of Oct/Nov 2018 per a a «« �< �« a as «< Ficus .143 X 0 4.7 9.1 Ficus species �0/12 70/50 5 fair moderate X p /o parking level. plan. oat sra aaa zr« ara «« : ara «« ma aa< asp as ;aa ara «« Located at P1 removed gas of t)Ct/N V 20f8 per 144 X 5.0 4.6 4.4 14.0 Ficus species Ficus sp. 20/12 70/50 55% fair moderate X parking level. plan. 145 X X 24.7 24.7 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 35/25 60/60 60% fair moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« «: 0 «� «. ;..rum kawaam►146 X 81 8.1 ever reer ear �0/15 60/50 7 fair moderate Removed as of Jam 2020. /o �J p Y , 147 X 7.2 7.2 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 15/12 40/40 40% poor poor W Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« 148 X 42.2 42.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/25 80/80 80% good good X Removed as of Jan, 2020. H 149 X 20.0 28.0 coat redwood Sgquoi sem ervirens 5/15 a 9 a 35/4,5 0% p9or poor H a n 0 N 0 N a n a 0 0 X NX a a X a n a R fZemoyed a!% of JcV, 202.0. Needs root crown excavation. « « Ha flowering cherry aa a « ° a a 150 X 4.0 3.' 7.1 cultivar Prunus serrulata Cult. 12/8 30/30 0 /o poor ? Out of leaf BC Condition not hemoved as of Jan, 2010. verified (tree out of a a «« «« Idaf dutin g sbrve Y)": a as a «« RH a a aX 'N z 0 a a a a a «« N N � a 'N 0 N as m aa'c xsi'. aait as «« 0a a aX 'aa 'a X X a .9r'se`a :u�`aa a «« 01 IN 0 151 X 27.7 27.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/20 80/60 66% fair good 0 to 3 X X Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1 2 X 31.2 N H 1 .2 coast red wood Sequoi sem ervire s 5/15 60/64 0% fair m derat « X fZemo ed a of Jan, 20ZO. N W «« «« « « «« « «« z a R 0 a a a a a a a 0 V. 0. V 193 X 0.5 19.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 0. t5/15 0 60/6 0% fair moderate X Removed as of Jan, 20 0. «« «« « « «« 154 X 18.0 18.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 70/70 70% good moderate X 75% overall condition "good'. Removed as of January 2020. «« « «« 12 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O OWN/ p L O 0 O � 'M L O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > 0 J � � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL � Z U G � = Z 0 l ) �H Ht) Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. «« « «« 155 X 20.0 20.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 70/70 70% good moderate X 75% overall condition "good". «« «« a a M a M a a a M a «« M$ Removed as Qf January 2020. «« «« £ 156 a X a a a a a a M 27.4 M a a a M a a a a 27.4 a a a a M a coast redwood Sequoi&sempervirens a 60/18 «« 75/76 % good good M a 0 a R a a a a a k 91 a X 65% overall condition "fair". Removed 1/2020. a 0 a M «« MI IN 0: a M M 9 H a 6 % O rail ondlt n "fair". 157 X 29.0 29.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/18 70/70 70% good moderate X Removed as of Jan, 2020. M «« F. a M a a a a M Root system 55% overall condition "fair" 158 X 27.2 27.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/15 50/40 40% poor poor X severed during ADA % oved as of Jap 2"fai «« « , ampnstalPation. «« P P. M ° Root system 35% overall condition "poor". 159 X 34.9 34.9 coast redwood Sequoi sempervirens �70/25 �� 60/40 48 /° poor poo to mod X severed during ADS► removed as of Jan, 200. ramp installation. f «« "fai ". 160 X 16.2 16.2 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 55/12 70/20 35% poor moderate X 3 5�% o�rall �nditbn r Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« «« «« 161 X 14.6 14.6 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 50/6 40/20 27% very poor X 17 45% overall condition "poor". poor Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« ... M tree species out of ° At various 1f2 X 1 .1 1 .1 leaf «« Genus species 5/16 50/z� 2 /° p9or poor S S e evati ns emo ed a� of Ja , 20 0. 163 X 2 .5 « 11 .5 Shamel ash « Fraxinus uhdei 45/30 a 30/3b 0% poor poor E 9X hemoved as of Jan, 2010. «« «« 164 X 18.8 18.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 35/35 35% poor poor X Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1 5 X 2 .4 « 1 .4 Shamel ash Franus hdei 50/30 30/3,4 0% por door 6 Xemoyed a of Jai, 20?0. M W «« « «« «« y< M N M M x a a a a a a 0 V. M. d 166 X X 16.9 16.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 25/ 2 X removed as of January 2 20 poor «« «« 167 X 21 .6 21 .6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 30/30 30% poor poor GR X removed as of January 2020 «« M a 0 «« 13 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a — ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 a `� _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS to \ — `� W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q a. O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI— Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O OWN/ p L O 0 O � 'M L O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > 0 J � � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL � Z U G � = Z 0 l ) �H Ht) Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. «« « «« 168 X 12.1 12.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/20 50/40 45% poor poor to mod GR X removed as of January 2020 « «« «« a a M a «« «« «« « £ 25% very 189 X X 20.1 a a M a 0.1 Shamel ash aFraxinus uhdei0/25 25/2�6 poor very pooh' a �_ a removed as of January 2020 170 X 25.9 25.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 55/40 45% poor poor severe GR X removed as of January 2020 «« r 0 a M M a x M a a a a a M «« « 171 X 40.2 40.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/25 80/80 80% good moderate X X 1/9/18 75% overall condition. «« « « Reqved ap of 1, 020. «« « 172 X 24.2 1 .2 Shamel ash «« Fraxinus uhdei 45/30 55/45 49% poor poor 8 removed as of January 2020 173 X X 27.2 27.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/18 45/45 45% poor poor X removed as of January 2020 « « «« 174 X 29.5 29.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 30/30 30% poor poor 0 to 7 X removed as of January 2020 «« 1 5 X 2Q.5 6.5 Sh mel ash «« Fraxinus dei 5/40 a« 50/6 5% fair m lerat xa M a M rgmovq d as t f January 2Q20 « «« «« 27% very «« 116 X X 2 .5 12.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 25/30 poor very poor X removed as of January 220 a a «« «« «a «« ma 0 a Ma a a «« M M a0 as «« ma a aa " 0 a mz m 0 a xsM 'aaa a a M a0 as «« 0a a aM 'aa 'a M M .9r'se`a :u�`a M «« a IN 0 177 X X 37.5 37.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/25 55/60 58% fair poor to mod X X removed as of January 2020 1 8 X 5d 7 3. « 9.5 strawberry tree Arbutus u edo 5/15 R 70/" 0% f it m o eratq W W r moved as qf January 2 20 «« « «« N a M a a a a a a a 0 V. 0. M 1 9 0 X BA 08.1 strawberry tree a Arbutus unedo 10/12 80/6 b ItO% good good W W removed as of January 2b20 «« «« « « « «« 180 X X 21 .2 21 .2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 15/15 15% very very poor 11 X removed as of January 2020 poor «« « «« 14 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a .- ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ — `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O OWN/ p L O 0 O � 'M L O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > 0 J � � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL � Z U G � = Z 0 l ) �H Ht) Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. «« « «« 181 X X 11 .6 11 .6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/6 10/10 10% very very poor X X removed as of January 2020 «« «« a a M a M a pooh a M a «« M$ a 192 X a a X a a a M 24.2 M a a a M a a a a 21 .2 a a a a M a coast redwood Sequoi&sempervirens a 65/12 a 5/5o 5% very poor very poor X removed as (Yff January 2020 a a «« « 183 X X 13.8 13.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/16 20/20 20% very poor very poor GR X removed as of January 2020 M «« x « « a M M. 184 X X 11 .9 11 .9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/12 5/5 5% very poor very poor X removed as of January 2020 «« « _ 1a5 X X 13.3 13.3 Shamel ash Frax nus uhdei 50/18 20% very «« 20/2U very poop X poor removed as of January 2020 «« 186 X X 9.7 9.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/12 8/8 8% very poor very poor X removed as of January 2020 «« 187 X 34.7 34.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/25 60/60 60% fair moderate X removed as of January 2020 «« 148 X X 12.2 2.2 dollar gum Eucalyptus 0/20 20/ 20% very ve o N N X r mov as f Jan a 20 • seedling polanthmos seedng) pooh qf p end rY «« « 60/20 40/4b 0°/ p p a a . � 1 6-9 X X 1 .1 18.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens ° oor oor X removed as of January 220 a a «« «« 190 X X 26.9 26.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/25 40/40 40% poor poor X removed as of January 2020 dollar gum Eucalyptus ° ry 1 1 X 1 .5 M M 7.5 eedlir g pol ►anth mos (seedling) 0/35 �R 60/5p 8 /° fir m derat « S r mov as f Jana 20 «« «« N M a a a a a a a 0 V. 0. M «« 0% very 192 X X 22.3 12.3 coast redwood Sequoiasempervir ns 0/12 1 0/lb poor very poor removed as of January 2b20 «« «« 193 X 21 .0 21 .0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/16 50/50 50% fair moderate removed as of January 2020 «« «« 15 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 L C� L0 L N O L + G� _ L + O a N >+ >' +Q+ V .-. L � � E Q O N O = p �C M 'V r O o 'tl) O O C O �' •� r a a o ,c s + 0 N cn > M =' ° a) o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name U ^ = c m a ^ o o W cn ^ >, W L 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om o � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � c� cn M c� 0 M }, � - � 3 WLCA Notes from 0o � � c� ca � � CL O Common Name � ca C� Z cZ C '> La O •- N N g � � a� � •L � (Genus, species) � cn o � � � > O c� � > ca �a .� � � � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve m � o � H N `. � " °aV � •= M � ♦> cMa � otf o too a' ow m o a) o � W °' ° •_ LC� a °' � m o •� x � � p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 L U L ++ N M LO W G� G� N S \ J 'i G� O O W ° O O O ca ca 1 1 N t, O r s R9 O ca H v 1 v Q to N L t/� L L > �_ •� L = C _ Q O O L �' N }' = U -' E �Q, ° O a0 }' aL,, O L O 0 O '(� L O L L L L L L �' a L Q O 'Q' a. Q' O LL J > V J r _ Z r W W LL Z U G Z LL 4) H HC� Q � aw � a � H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E w = c� _ � .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 194 X 20.4 20.4 dollar gum Eucalyptus 60/20 40/40 40% poor poor X X removed as of January 2020 seedling of anthemos (seedling) x 195 X X 27.6 7.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/20 30/30 30% poor poor X X removed as t f January 2020 z . M n 196 X 19.5 19.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/20 55/55 55% fair moderate X X removed as of January 2020 197 X 30.1 30.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/25 70/70 70% good moderate X X removed as of January 2020 198 X 50 5.0 evergreerpear Pyrus kawakam►► 15/12 40/40 40% poor poor .. Stunted. removed as of January 220 >a 199 X 6.0 6.0 evergreen pear +F Pyrus kawakamii^* 20/13 40/40 40% poor poor GR X Infected with bacterial fireblight. removed as of January 2020 A >R ;: x a N a a a a a a a3 : 200 X X 10.1 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 22/20 30/20 25% very moderate GR X Infected with removed as of January 2020 poor bacterial fireblight>R . 201 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE 202 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE a tulip trge 203 X X 18.6 18.6 (ID not verified - Liriodendron tulipifera 60/20 0/0 0% dead GR High risk of failure. Removed as of January 2020 tree out of leaf Dead tree. during survey) 204 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE ; Possible steep 205 X 36.0 36.0 coast redwood Sequoia'semperv►rdns 80/30 75/75 75% good good hillslo ed'pe stability` Removas of January f020 issues. Possible steep 206 X 24.1 24.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/20 75165 70% good good hillslope stability Removed as of January 2020 issues.. 16 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a — ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = cn Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � � Spring n 2015 Survey rve � v) _ � � � � � ar � __ � � > _ � °� Uo � o � � o � o � W0 o •_ � � C� a�i0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca �' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ — `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ MTa � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L t/� O 0. � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O OWN/ p L O Q� O '(Q L O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q G� ca o O LL J > V J _ Z a m m LL u) Z U G = z DC u) H F- Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C� O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. Possible steep lillslope Stability:. issues. Needs arboist cabling 207 X 29.9 29.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 80/25 75/40 50% fair good 25 between Removed as of January 2020 mainstems, or remove one of two mainstems, if retain tree. H a a a a a a a a a z a n R a W a a 9 1 a a a Possible Steep hillslope stability a issues. Needs arborist cabling 208 X 32.2 32.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 80/25 75/40 50% fair food 30 between Removed as of January 2020 a s mz N 01 a mz mainstems, or remove one of two mainstems, IY retain tree. 209 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE Possible stability 210 X 49.0 49.0 coast redwood Sgquoi sem ervirens 35/25 75/60 5% fair m derat issue on the hill. 65 Rgmovgd as 9f January 2.020 Root§ mayave been severed. 2 1 X 14.9 14.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 65/65 65% fair moderate X X Removed as of January 2020 212 X 22.0 22.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/15 75/75 75% good moderate X X Removed as of January 2020 ° ree appears dead; tulip tree (ID not verified - 0 /° dead but may simply be 213 X X 10.0 j 6.0 tree out of leaf Lirjodengron ulipif ra 5/30 M (Confirm in W above ground R mov d as f January 2020 during survey) spring) dormant until spring leafout. 2f4 X X 31.3 t1 .3 coast redwood Sequoia sem ervirens 5/25 75/6 % good moderate X Removed as of January A20 H $r"a a s mz a N 01R aH mz a a mz 215 X 20.3 20.3 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 50/20 80/60 70% good good W Removed as of January 2020 W a HI 0 H 01 IN 0 H r a a a a a a a a N a a N a H 216 X 15.4 15.4 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 50/20 75/65 70% good good W Removed as of January 2020 2' 7 X 13.6 13.6 fern pike Pbdocpus racilr50/20 ' 75/6655 % gdod food W Rmovd asf January 2020 tulip tree 0% dead? Verify condition H (Verify Once m a a 0 0 W N N V a a a N H 218 X X 17.4 17.4 (ID not verified - Liriodendron tulipifera 55/20 0/0 tree has W once tree has leafed Removed as of January 2020 tree out of leaf out (or not) in H le@fed Opt in durg survey) Spring' spring) Tree is in decline with an 219 X 20.8 20.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 40/50 43% poor poor to mod W X apparent overall condition of roughly 30% (Poor). 17 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri E Q O to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� -W 'a }, }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ E O - O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� WWM1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 �c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = v) _ W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 220 X 26.8 26.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 60/55 59% fair moderate Tree is in decline with an 221 19.3 19.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 50/50 50% fair moderate apparent overall condition of roughly 35% (Poor). Tree is in decline with an 222 X 19.5 19.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 60/55 58% fair moderate E apparent overall condition of roughly 30% (Poor). 223 X 30.4 30.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 70/45 55% fair good E E GR 12 X >F Removed per plan on Fraxinus uhdei 224 X 18.4 18.4 Shamel ash 50/15 40/50 40 /° poor poor to mod W 10/22/2019 by clint magill, DEVCON. 225 X 25.4 25.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 50/40 48% poor moderate E Roots severed on west side. 226 X 15.5 15.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 50/30 37% poor moderate E E 0 to 1 Roots severed on west side. 227 X X 18.5 18.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 30/20 25% very poor E 0 to 5 14 Roots severed on poor west side. 228 X 11 .5 11 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/25 40/30 35% poor moderate E Roots severed on west side. a 229 X 9.6 9.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 25/12 90/90 90% excellent good Removed as of Jan, 2020. 230 X 8 9 8.9 coast redwood Sequoia sem ervirens 30/14 90/90 90%° excellent good Removed as of Jan 2020. 21 X 14.4 $` 14.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/20 35/45 39% poor poor Removed as of Jan, 2020. 232 X 19.3 19.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 40/45 42% poor poor to mod E Removed as of Jan, 2020. 18 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L Q � � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ M °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O OWN/ p L O 0 O � 'M L O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > 0 J � � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL � Z U G � = Z 0 l ) �H Ht) Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. «« « «« 233 X 19.6 19.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 50/40 47% poor moderate E 0 to 1 Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« «« a a M a «« «« «« £ 234 a X a a a a a a M 15.1 M a a a M a a a a 45.1 Shamel ash n «« Fraxinus uhdei a a 60/25M35/35 350yo poor poor E Removed as of Jan, 2020. 235 X 17.8 17.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 55/40 50% fair moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. M M Mx, 236 X 17.4 17.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 55/55 55% fair moderate Removed as of Jan, 2020. 237 a X a a a a a a a 5 a a a a a M a a a m6.5 w, a a a a a Stwmel ash w Fraxinus uhdei 30/15 75/65 70% good m mod t0 good «. a a a a a 0 M a a a a a aRemoved as Of Jam, 2020. 238 X 9.2 9.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/18 75/60 72% good mod to good Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« 239 X 6.8 6.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/18 70/45 54% fair mod to good serious GR Removed as of Jan, 2020. M0 0 0: 240 X $ 1 8.1 Sh mel ash «« Frax nus dei 0118 «« 70/6 7 % good mod to gold emo ed a of Jam, 20 0. 21 X 6.4 6.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 30/10 85/85 85% good good removed as of Jan, 2010. a a «« «« m 0 a xsM 'aaa a a M a0 as «« 0a a aM 'aa 'a M M M .9r'se`a :u�`a M «« a IN 0: aiit .... .... .... xsi'. £ra «« m m .... .... .... .... 242 X 5.4 5.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 30110 85185 85% good good Removed as of Jan, 2020. 243 X 7 « 5.7 coat red ood Sequoi sem ervirer►s 0/10 85/8,. 5% good ood emo ed a of J , 20ZO. M W «« «« P P. V: « «« «« M N M M x a a a a a a 0 V. M. M 244 X 6 4.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 25/10 75/75 5% good good tmoved as of Jan, 20 0. 245 X 6.7 6.7 flowering pear (out pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/14 85/65 75% good good N Removed as of Jan, 2020. of leaf) «« M a 0 «« a M g: 19 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 L C� L0 L N O L �+ G� _ L + Q a N >+ >' +�+ V L � � Q Q' _ � � v LL ma -aO r- O O � MM 0 � C r- a cn > = >o + M a) O O O N0 Updated Overall C onditio n > N C o o 0 cc - WLCA Notes from � Scientific Name W M � 3 Nom 0 a Common Name Z Z Cn M WL Ratings & NOTES 2017 5 • w (Genus, species) O L MN }0 " a� > O > Spring 2015 Survey o Q • ONWARD o� m O Q2WON LO W w> o L /O O O r c Ov Q � Oa 0 E O > LO ' CL L M LP 0 0. 0 Q 0 )L N Q O Q' Q' > Z ZO 0 O O > 4)aw � a c� L Z V J U) `. flowering pear (out Two codominant 246 X 5.8 5.8 Pyrus calleryana Cult. 25/13 85/60 68% fair good see notes mainstems. Remove Removed as of Jan, 2020. of lea one of two. flowering ear out Root crown g p ( : : 2�7 X 9 xu x.� 4'9 of leaf) Pyrus calleryana Cult. 24/10 85/50 55 /° fair moderate N anomaly. 'Removed as of Jan, 2020. m x Scot ... ... ,:. xs ... ! . . .... _ ... ... . . .... ... .. . . ... .. ... .. ... floweringear out Various 248 X 7.8 7.8 p ( Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/18 85/55 62% fair good N Removed as of Jan, 2020. of leaf) elevations 249 X 6.5 6.5 flowering pear (out Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/12 85/65 75% good good N Removed as of Jan, 2020. f o leaf) flowering pear (out 250 X &3 6.3 - Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/12 85/55 60 /° fair good N ; _ x 12 x Removed as of Jan, 2020. of leaf) flowering pear (Old 251 X 6.1 6.1 of leaf) Pyrus calleryana Cult. 20/10 85/60 68% fair good Removed as of Jan, 2020. A >M ;: x a M 3 252 X 3.6 3.6 flowering pear (out Pyrus calleryana Cult. 18/8 85/75 80% good good Removed as of Jan, 2020. V. of leaf) flowering pear (out 2.53 a X 703 M a M 0 0 M 0 a N 7.3 a a x 0 Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/15 ... 85/65 73% good good of leaf Removed as of Jan, 2020. 4 M M N M a a a a x a N 0 M M 254 X 7.5 M � ,� 7.5 of leaf)flowering pear (out Pyrus calleryana Cult. ��0/18 85/55 63% fair good 7 , Removed as of Jan, 2010. ;. 255 X 9.0 9.0 flowering pear (out Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/20 85/45 55% fair good X 7 Removed as of Jan, 2020. of leaf) y y flowering pear (out 26 X 75 R 7.5 .E Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/15 85/50 58% fair good X 7 Removed as of Jan, 2020. bf leaf) x flowering ea out 27 X 47.4 p ( Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/15 85/5 65% fair good 10 Removed as of Jan, 2020. of leaf) 258 X 6.7 6.7 flowering pear (out Pyrus calleryana Cult. 30/15 85/60 67% fair good X X Removed as of Jan, 2020. of leaf) 20 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z _ z a o •- ^ >► N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 � a� •° (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � � Spring n 2015 Survey rve � v) � � � � � � ar � __ � � > _ � °� Uo � ox � o � o � W0 o •� � � C� a�i0 � � op = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca �' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ - `� W 0 J v O O X 'p > ♦, v +� ca a..� c a W p W 2 t� O O p V O 1 N Q +�+ O r = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ +�.+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O p I- Ica " _ M Ta � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L O 0. 'L OC NO a� O � 'C� > v O O WN/ p L O Q� O '(Q L O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q G� ca o O LL J > V J _ Z a m m LL u) Z U G = Z Q: u) H Ht� Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... � _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. «« « « «« 259 X 4.9 4.9 flowering pear (out Pyrus calleryana Cult. 25/12 85/65 69% fair good X Removed as of Jan, 2020. « «« of leaf) MM a a 0 M a «« M$ a R. a a. a M a �€ Tree is in roughly the same 260 discretionary X 35.9 35.9 X California Platanus racemosa 65/45 65/50 60% fair moderate W W overall condition rating as noted transplant sycamore in prior years. Tree to be transplanted per project team. Bark sloughing at Tree is in roughly the same discretionary California Platanus racemosa 65/45 75/45 57 /o o f See notes root crown, possibly overall condition rating as noted 261 transplant X 22.8 21 .9 44.7 X sycamore air moderate N & S GR At zero ft at right . due to irrigation in prior years. Tree to be water spray. transplanted per project team. Tree is in roughly the same 262 discretionary X 15.4 15.4 X California Platanus racemosa 45/30 70/70 70% good moderate NE NE 1 ft. overall condition rating as noted transplant sycamore in prior years. Tree to be transplanted per project team. Tree condition is roughly the 263 X 13.5 13.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/15 50/45 47% poor moderate S S GR same as previously noted in past years. 264 X 14.9 14.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/20 55/55 55% fair poor to mod S S Removed as of Jan, 2020. «_ 265 X 19.0 19.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 55/40 45% poor moderate GR 25 Removed as of Jan, 2020. «« 246 X 2Q.8 20.8 ShAmel ash Fraxinus LIhdei a 55/30050/ 5% p9or poorto m d M Roots have been emo ed a of Jqp, 20 « «« « oots have been 267 X 2 .7 13.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 65/30 0% poor good SW SW R severed. removed as of Jan, 2010. «« « « 268 X 26.5 26.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/25 75/55 65% fair good S X Removed as of Jan, 2020. 29 X 2 .1 « 7.1 Slmel ash Fran us qhdei 55/25 75/4, 55% fir good serious GIB 25 Xemoed a of Jam, 200. «« r o Root system Tree condition appears to be 270 X 28.7 28.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/35 75/55 63 /o fair good 10 asymmetrical declining. Current condition rating is roughly 48 /o (Poor). 271 X 35.2 35.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/20 70/70 70% good moderate X 21 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 272 X 19.3 19.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/12 68/70 69% fair moderate X 273 X 23.3 23.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/12 70/70 70% good moderate X 274 X 23.9 23.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/12 70/70 70% good moderate X 275 17.0 17.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/16 65/65 65% fair moderate X 276 X 15.4 15.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/12 40/30 34% poor poor E at root crown X Tree condition same as noted in prior years. Tree condition appears to be 277 19.3 19.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 50/40 40% poor moderate E E serious GR X declining. Current condition is roughly 30% (Poor). Tree condition appears to be 278 X 21 .0 21 .0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/25 60/50 55% fair moderate W W GR declining. Current condition is roughly 48% (Poor). Tree condition appears to be 279 X 26.7 26.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/20 80/80 80% good good declining. Current condition is roughly 70% (i.e. the low end of "Good" condition rating range). Tree condition appears to be 280 16.4 16.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/20 30/45 37% poor poor serious GR X declining. Current condition is roughly 30% (Poor). 281 X 21 .2 21 .2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 30/20 20% very very poor 6 X Roots severed. Condition same as noted in poor prior years. 282 15.0 15.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/18 30/30 30% poor poor E GR X Roots severed. Tree in same condition as previously noted in past years. Tree in decline. Current 283 X 18.1 18.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 40/30 35% poor poor to mod E GR X Roots severed. condition is roughly 26% (Very Poor). Suggest consider removal of tree. 284 14.4 14.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 40/40 40% poor poor GR X Tree in same condition as previously noted in past years. 22 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a — ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z _ z a o •- ^ >► N '� •- = cn Ratings & NOTES 2017 a `� _ � a� •° (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � � Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •� � � C� a�i 0 � fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca �' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ — `� W 0 J v O O X 'p > ♦, v +� ca a..� c a W p W 2 t� O O p V O 1 N Q +�+ O r = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ +�.+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O p I— I ca " � � _ M Ta � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L O 0. 'L OC NO a� O � 'C� > v O O WN/ p L O Q� O '(Q L O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q G� ca o O LL J > V J 0 _ Z 0 a m m LL Z 0 G = Z 0 Q: Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C� O ... � w a = c� _ � `. `. `. `. �. 285 X 18.4 18.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 50/40 44% poor poor to mod E E GR X Roots severed. 286 X 17.0 17.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/45 60/60 60% fair moderate N 287 X 24.3 24.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/15 70/70 70% good moderate X 288 X 15.7 15.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/15 70/70 70% good moderate X Removed as of Jan, 2020. N W «« P a a a a a a a a a a a a a «« «« «« « .... Apical meristem 2a9 X X 26.9 «« 6.9 coast redwood Sequoi semp�ervirens 60/15 50/65 63% fair moderate � X sho physical v Removed as of Jan, 2020. wing Symptoms of soil moisture deficit. 290 X 14.8 14.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/20 45/35 40% poor poor to mod W serious GR X Tree in decline. Current condition is 30 /° (Poor). 291 X 24.2 24.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/40 55/45 48% poor moderate W serious GR 6 Tree in decline. Current condition is 36 /° (Poor). Tree is in decline due to chronic 292 X 16.3 16.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/10 70/70 70% good moderate droughty conditions. Current condition rating is 60% (Fair). 293 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 294 X 18.7 18.7 fern pine Podocarpus gracilior 30/18 50/40 45% poor moderate W 5 X Removed as of Jan, 2020 25% very 25 X 86 « 8.6 outhrn mgnoli llgnola gradiflo -a 8/15 Q 25/ pooh very pooh W 9 X a Xemved a of Jan, 200 N W «« P a a a a a a a 0 a a a a W «« « «« «« « 296 X 11.3 17.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/15 35/35 5% poor poor W W 'Removed as of Jan, 2020 « «_ _. 297 X X 12.1 12.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/15 35/20 20% very poor 6 Removed as of Jan, 2020 poor «« a «« « 23 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _CD ' L � � ca a) z 3 in a > 'gin _ ca _ �' CL -0-^ 'a 0-- s cn > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a .- ca }, L � }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- �. >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 �* =' o a `� _ _ ._ ._ ._ _ _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � �. Spring n 2015 Survey rve � v) _ � � � � � ar � __ � � > _ � Uo � o � � o � o � W0 o •_ � � C� a�i0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca ' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' °tS N \ — `� a. W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q O =_ = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ +�.+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O pI- Ica " � � _ cam � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ � L L t/� O � � 'LOCNO a� O � 'C� > v O ONN p L O 0 O � 'M i O L L L L L L � � a L 0 � Q O '� Q G� ca o > LL J > V J 0 � � _ � Z 0 a m m LL u) Z 0 G � = Z 0 I. ) u) H Ht) Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C) O ... h _ _ C _ � `. `. `. `. �. «« « «« 298 X X 18.8 18.8 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/12 15/15 15% very very poor X Removed as of Jan, 2020 p 00 «« «« «« «« 299 a X a a a a a a M 16.0 M a a a M a a a a 46.0 a a a a M M Shamel ash n a Fraxdnus uhdei 45/15 30/45 400/o poor p Removed poor E emved as of Jan 2020 a 0: a M M 9 a V M a a 0 v ry 0 300 X X 23.3 23.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/15 20/20 20 /poor very poor X Removed as of Jan, 2020 ffi M 301 X X 15.2 15.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/18 20/15 19% very very poor X Removed as of Jan, 2020 Poor «: 0 «� ..S uoisem rvirs 60/60 60 fair moderate X Removed as of Jan 2020 302 X 26.9 15.0 1 .9 coast redwood � � �70 25 . /0 , 303 X 17.2 17.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 55/60 55% fair moderate NW Removed as of Jan, 2020 « « «« 304 X X 19.0 19.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 45/10 5/5 5% very poor very poor X Removed as of Jan, 2020 M 3 5 X X 2 1 0.1 S mel sh Fraxinus dei 0/15 10/1 10% very 6 em ed a of J n 2020 «« poo 36 X 1 '.5 « 17.5 Shamel ash « Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 50/4b 0% poor poor to mod W 8 emoved as of Jan, 2010 a a «« a m ast atM 'aaa a a M a aa «« 0a a aM 'aa 'a M M -M :u�`aa a «« « IN 0: 307 X X 17.7 17.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/20 30/25 29% very poor X 0 to 6 Removed as of Jan, 2020 poor 3 8 X . 2 .1 M M 1 .1 coat red wood Sepuoi sem ervirens 50/15 75/75 75% g od a good 0 a a a a a M M a a a a a a a a removed a§ of J n, 2030 3 X 16.2 16.2 coast redwood Sequoiasempervirens 0. to/i5 75/ 3% good good Removed as of Jan, 2020 «« «« « 310 X 20.6 20.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/35 50/50 50% fair moderate W Removed as of Jan, 2020 «« M a 0 «« a M g: 24 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � c� cn c� � � }, }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0o � � c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z cZ C '> M La O •- N a g � � a� � •L � (Genus, species) � cn o � � � > O C� � > ca ca .� a� � � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O r s «i O ca H c.� 1 v Q to to L N i + E O — O H ca L i ca •++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 O/ Q � •C� > V Q �0 0 L O O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z LL 0! C/)H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn r = v� _ � .� .� .� `. `. . `. 311 X 27.0 27.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/45 65/55 60% fair good W 8 Removed as of Jan, 2020 E: x a roo crown due u o to 3' 2 X 16.1 6.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/20 50/25 32 /o poor moderate W GR sprinkler Removed as of Jan, 2020 irrigation most likely 313 X 20.9 20.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/35 50/35 45% poor poor W GR X Removed as of Jan, 2020 .. ... 314 X 30.6 30.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/45 70/40 50% fair Good X 6 Root system on steep slope 315 X 21 .8 21 .8 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/12 55/60 57% fair moderate E X 25% overall condition "very poor". 316 X 18.5 18.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/20 50/45 48% poor moderate N Root system on steep slope 317 X 10.2 10.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/12 40/40 40% poor poor 35% overall condition "poor' . 318 X 9.9 9.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/12 45/45 45% poor poor 319 X 18.6 18.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 50/50 50% fair moderate N 320 X 13.3 13.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/12 50/40 45% poor moderate 7 321 X 16.2 16.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 55/60 56% fair mod to good X 322 X 11 .9 11 .9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/15 40/40 40% poor poor X 323 X 9.4 9.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/12 30/30 30% poor poor X 25 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri E Q O to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� -W 'a }, }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a 9 a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + E O — O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� WWM1 O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� . `. `. . `. 324 X 12.8 12.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/12 30/40 35% poor poor X 325 X X 7.4 7.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 28/12 20/20 20% very very poor X poor 326 X 13.0 13.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/20 45/55 48% poor poor X 327 X 11 .9 11 .9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/12 30/30 30% poor poor E GR X , , , , , , , , ,. TREE HAS BEEN REMOVED ,/ , a a , , , , , , , , , , , :i , , , , , , , , , , , FROM LANDSCAPE. 329 X 14.2 14.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/20 35/40 38% poor poor S X 330 X 15.7 15.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/20 30/40 35% poor poor S X 331 X 10.1 10.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 40/35 37% poor poor S S X 332 X X 18.9 18.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/12 5/5 5% very poor very poor X 0% (Dead). 333 X X 18.4 18.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/8 5/5 5% very poor very poor X 0% (Dead). 334 X 18.5 18.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 45/55 50% fair moderate X 335 X X 16.0 16.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/12 5/5 5% very poor very poor X 0% (Dead). 336 X X 9.6 9.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/10 10/10 10% very moderate mainstem X poor 26 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r E 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ E O — O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 �c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL 4) �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 337 X X 8.8 8.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/7 5/5 5% very poor very poor mainstem X 338 X 8.7 8.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/8 30/10 15% very poor mainstem X poor 339 X 12.8 12.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/20 40/40 40% poor poor W X 340 X 14.3 14.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 35/40 38% poor poor X 341 X X 10.9 10.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/8 10/10 10% very very poor mainstem X poor 342 X X 12.0 12.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/18 10/10 10% very very poor mainstem X poor Verify condition 343 X 13.7 13.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/18 35/35 35% poor poor X once tree leafs out in spring. 344 X X 7.3 7.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 20/12 20/20 20% very very poor X poor 345 X 14.4 14.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 40/30 35% poor poor 8 X 346 X X 10.7 10.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/12 10/10 10% very very poor E X poor 347 X X 11 .3 11 .3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/12 25/10 17% very poor X poor 348 X X 12.9 12.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/18 25/20 20% very very poor X poor 349 X X 12.2 12.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 25/25 25% very very poor X poor 27 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c s + 0 N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = c) = W .� .� . `. `. . `. 350 X X 14.2 14.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/15 20/20 20% very very poor X poor 351 X 14.6 14.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 40/25 28% very poor to mod 6 X poor 352 X 11 .7 11 .7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/20 10/10 10% very very poor W W X poor 353 X 17.7 17.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 35/35 35% poor poor E X 354 X 13.4 13.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/20 45/35 40% poor poor X 355 X 12.5 12.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/15 20/15 18% very very poor X poor 356 X 18.0 18.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/30 20/10 15% very very poor W S X poor 357 X 20.8 20.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/45 40/50 46% poor M X 358 X 10.9 10.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/15 0/0 0% dead E E X 359 X 18.3 18.3 Pine species (not verified) Pinus sp. 30/20 80/55 65% fair good N 0 to 1 foot X 40% overall condition "poor' . 360 X 24.4 24.4 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 30/35 90/60 77% good excellent 65% overall condition "fair'. 361 X 26.6 26.6 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 30/30 60/60 60% fair moderate X X Measured at 2 feet. 65% overall condition "fair'. 362 X 28.6 28.6 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/35 70/70 70% good good X Measured at 2 feet. 50% overall condition "fair'. 28 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c s + 0 N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a- }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N O - O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = v) _ � .� `. .� `. Quercus rubra (not Tree out of leaf. 10% overall condition "very 363 X X 7.2 7.2 red oak 20/15 80/50 60% fair good Needs training verified) poor". pruning. ° Tree out of leaf. 5% overall condition "very 364 X X 5.5 5.5 oak species Quercus sp. 12/8 60/40 40 /° poor moderate X 5 Needs training poor . pruning. 365 X X 7.3 7.3 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 18/13 40/40 40% poor poor to mod X 10% overall condition "very poor". 366 X 17.0 17.0 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 18/25 80/50 60% fair good N X Measured at 3.5 feet 50% overall condition "fair' . 367 X X 24.3 24.3 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 80/35 45% poor good N 5 X 20% overall condition "very poor". 368 X 20.2 20.2 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 80/35 45% poor good N GR 7 X Measured at 3.5 feet. 30% overall condition "poor' . 369 X 23.8 23.8 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 50/50 50% fair poor to mod 10 Measured at 2.0 38% overall condition "poor' feet. . tree species out of ° Verify species in 370 X 5.7 5.7 leaf (Genus, species) 25/15 75/55 65 /° fair moderate spring after full leafout. 371 X 26.3 26.3 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 30/35 80/60 70% good good X Coemsdom atant 5 feet.mainstms at 50% overall condition "fair' . 372 X 21 .6 18.7 40.3 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 30/35 80/70 75% good good N X 65% overall condition "fair' . 373 X X 7.4 7.4 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 20/15 25/25 25% very very poor X 20% overall condition "very poor poor". 15% very In parking lot of Benihana near 374 X X 7.2 7.2 tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera 12/8 20/10 poor very poor N X X X Hyatt construction project. Sandis #1225. 15% very In parking lot of Benihana near 375 X X 5.6 5.6 tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera 12/8 20/10 poor very poor X X X Hyatt construction project. Sandis #1224. 29 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c s + 0 N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� . `. `. . `. 376 X X 5.6 5.6 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 13/10 25/25 25% very very poor X 10% overall condition "very poor poor". 377 X X 7.6 7.6 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 19/12 35/35 35% poor poor X 20% overall condition "very poor". 378 X X 7.0 7.0 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 20/14 20/20 20% very very poor X 20% overall condition "very poor poor". 379 X X 6.5 6.5 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 14/12 25/25 25% very very poor X 20% overall condition "very poor poor". 380 X X 7.4 7.4 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 20/10 20/20 20% very very poor W X 20% overall condition "very poor poor". 381 X 23.0 14.7 37.7 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 75/55 64% fair moderate 5 X 43% overall condition "poor' . 382 X 20.8 20.8 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/25 70/60 65% fair moderate GR X 53% overall condition "fair' . 383 X 19.5 19.5 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 80/65 74% good good E GR X 44% overall condition "poor'. 384 X 22.0 22.0 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 70/60 65% fair moderate S S X Measured at 2.0 50% overall condition "fair' . . 385 X 33.2 33.2 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/35 60/30 38% poor moderate S 3 X 42% overall condition "poor'. 386 X X 4.5 4.5 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 13/8 15/15 15% very very poor 1 X X 10% overall condition "very poor poor". 387 X X 7.8 7.8 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 18/18 20/20 20p very very poor X 30% overall condition "poor' . poor 388 X X 7.5 7.5 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 18/15 20/20 20% very very poor X 15% overall condition "very poor poor". 30 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + 0 N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a- }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O - O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 389 X 31 .9 22.3 54.2 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 30/45 50/40 47% poor moderate 2 X 44% overall condition "poor". 390 X 13.2 13.0 26.2 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/15 80/30 45% poor good N N 3 X 35% overall condition "poor' . 391 X 12.4 12.0 24.4 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/30 80/60 67% fair good E E 3 X 45% overall condition "poor' . 392 X 14.6 14.6 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 25/18 80/65 69% fair good E X 40% overall condition "poor' . 393 X 14.3 14.3 Italian stone pine Pinus pinea 20/20 70/70 70% good good E X 55% overall condition "fair' . 394 X 10.3 10.3 tree species out of (Genus, species) 35/20 80/65 75% good good leaf 395 X 9.8 9.8 tree species out of (Genus, species) 35/20 80/65 75% good good W leaf 396 X X 18.1 18.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/12 70/70 70% good moderate Steep slope 15% overall condition "very poor". 397 X X 20.5 20.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/12 75/75 75% good moderate Steep slope 25% overall condition "very poor". 398 X 13.4 13.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 80/70 74% good good Steep slope 399 X 11 .3 11 .3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/15 30/30 30% poor poor Steep slope 400 X 21 .3 21 .3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 60/50 55% fair moderate 6 Steep slope 401 X 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/20 50/35 40% poor moderate W 8 10 On steep slope. 31 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL �H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 402 X 18.4 18.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/25 60/45 55% fair good 6 On steep slope. 403 X 15.0 15.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/18 40/40 40% poor poor W 6 8 On steep slope. 404 X 25.7 25.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 40/40 40% poor poor SW various On steep slope. elevations 405 X 29.5 29.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/35 40/35 40% poor poor S S 7 On steep slope. 406 X X 17.4 17.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/8 70/70 70% good moderate On steep slope. 25% overall condition "very poor". 407 X X 4.1 4.1 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 15/1 5/5 5% very poor very poor 0 to 10 0% (Dead) 408 X X 5.9 3.8 9.7 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 18/6 10/10 10% very very poor various 10% overall condition "very poor elevations poor". 409 X 18.3 18.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/15 65/65 65% fair moderate X 50% overall condition "fair' . 410 X 20.7 20.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/13 65/65 65% fair moderate X 50% overall condition "fair'. 411 X 22.4 22.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/13 60/60 60% fair poor to mod X 40% overall condition "poor'. 412 X 33.4 R 2.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/35 65/55 65% fair good g S Removed Aug, 2019. x 4'13 X 19.6 15.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/18 50/40 45% poor poor to mod N Removed Aug,'2019. Will need endweight Team proposes to transplant 414 discretionary X 22.5 22.5 X California Platanus racemosa 55/30 50/45 50% fair moderate W W GR reduction pruning at tree. Current condition roughly transplant sycamore west side of the same as previously noted in canopy. past years. 32 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i ) L N ^ _ ' L � Q � ca d � 3 _ in a a� > 'gin _ ca °' _ >' >' -' -, s > a E �, .O �c _ N L `� N }, M s o a s = o o a� 0 O �, N t� � O ^ O � � Updated Overall Condition o m O .N _ ^ i + ca N Scientific Name C� �, 'a - ca }, L }, 3 _ � WLCA Notes from Common Name = O o z = z a o •- ^ >► _ N '� •- = M Ratings & NOTES 2017 a `� _ � a� •° _ (Genus, species) C O r i ci v _ > > L 0 ' � > ca y � a� � � Spring n 2015 Survey rve cn _ ar __ > _ Uo o o o W 0 o •_ � � C� a�i 0 _ fop = •� °r � cn � p 9 Y ONWARD ca �' M O �. N N M to G� }; v V = 'tn > �' otS N \ - `� W 0 J v O O X 'p O O p V O 1 N Q a. O = = `~ = s cQ O = H V >C V 'O O Q _� ^ ay+ O 'O N '� O W O ♦+ O p I- I ca " � � _ M Ta � N+ >_ `G� ''O^^ CL L O 0. 'L OC NO a� O � 'C� > v O O WN/ p L O Q� O '(Q L O L L L L L L a L 0 Q O '� Q G� ca o O LL J > V J 0 _ Z 0 a m m LL Z 0 G = Z 0 DC Q � aWIL a � H H H H H H QDo C� O ... � w _ = c� _ � `. `. `. `. �. Team proposes to transplant 415 discretionary X 18.3 18.3 X California Platanus racemosa 60/30 50/50 50% fair moderate N GR tree. Current condition roughly transplant sycamore the same as previously noted in past years. Team proposes to transplant 416 discretionary X 17.8 17.8 X California Platanus racemosa 50/20 50/50 50% fair moderate E GR tree. Current condition roughly transplant sycamore the same as previously noted in past years. 417 X 19.2 19.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/25 75/55 70% good good Removed per plan August 2019. 418 X 11 .5 11 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/15 45/40 40% poor moderate GR Removed per plan August 2019. IM IM IM Fraxinus uhdei 0 419 X 17.3 ;.17.3 Shamel ash 35/40 60/50 55 fair moderate W GR Removed per Ian Au ust 2019. /o p p g IM IM 0 420 X 11 .1 11 .1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 75/70 70 /o good good W Removed per plan August 2019. P. 421 X 13.7 13.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 50/50 50% fair poor to mod Removed per plan August 2019. Fraxinus h � : 0 a us u de 42 X 1 . . 14. mI h 7 4 fit Removed. r plan 1 . : 2 4 3 3 Sha e s 0/30 : 5/ 60 ood 9 emo ed. e a August 9 Se uoia sem ervirens 0 423 X 29.1 29.1 coast redwood 70/20 70/7� 70 good moderate Removed per Ian Au gust:*" 019. /o q p g p p 424 X 33.6 33.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/18 60/60 60% fair moderate Removed per plan August 2019. 425 X 24.9 .24.9 coast redwood Sequoia:,sem ervirens 65/15 . 70/7.0 7.0% ood moderate Removed.. per plan Au ust..2019. . q p. p p:. g :::: :::g Se uoia sem ervirens 0 426 X 2�'.8 27.8 coast redwood 55/20 75/68 7`0 good moderate Removed per lan Au ust 2019. q p /o g p p 9 IM 427 X 17.3 17.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/20 40/40 40% poor poor E X Removed per plan August 2019. 33 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 L C� L0 L N O L �+ a. rL � � E Q O Z N a E O ,c s + 0 N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� -W 'a }, }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ L C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 � L U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q to to L G� L L > �_ •� = C _ E Q O C V ' � = O L. �' N 0 0 }' Q r V �' O O = }; }' - O L �+ E O — O H ca L 'a L ca '++ '++ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 0 Q L L L L L L �' a L Q O 'Q' Q' O LL J > V J r _ Z r W W LL Z U G Z LL 0! Cn H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = v� _ � .� .� .� `. `. .� `. Tree is declining. Appears to be in 40% overall condition (Poor), 428 29.0 29.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/35 50/50 50% fair poor to mod W with normal leaf senescence plus twig and branch dieback from drougtht-induced decline. Tree is declining. Appears to be u in 45% overall condition (Poor), Codominant Tree is to be removed and 49 2 .0 a` 12.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 5/35 70/55 5% fair good mainsfems fork at posted as such as of May, 2020 (approved by City of Cupertino 13 feet. A City Staff) in order to accommodate unforseen utility installation(s). Metasequoia ° TREE IS DEAD. TREE 430 X X 27.4 27.4 giant sequoia glyptostroboides 75/15 65/45 55 /° fair poor to mod Tree was limbed up. REQUIRES REMOVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE. Tree in decline, with a current 431 27.9 27.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/45 45/30 40% poor poor to mod W E 9 overall condition of 34% or "Poor". Tree in decline, with a current 432 24.0 24.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/35 50/60 55% fair poor to mod W overall condition of 44% or "Poor". Tree in decline, with a current 433 16.9 16.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/25 75/60 63% fair good E E overall condition of 50% or "Fair". ("Fair" ranges from 50% to 69%). Metasequoia 25% very Roots were severed TREE IS DEAD. TREE 434 X X 29.3 29.3 giant sequoia glyptostroboides 75/12 35/20 poor poor E X during installation REQUIRES REMOVAL FROM of ADA walkway. THE LANDSCAPE. 25% very Roots severed 435 X 31 .1 31 .1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/45 40/20 poor poor W GR during sidewalk Same condition as previous. replacement 436 23.0 12.0 35.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/18 75/60 65% fair good 3 Diameters estimated. 437 27.7 27.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 30/30 30% poor poor W 9 Tree currently in the same condition as previously noted. Roots severed 438 X X 23.5 23.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/18 60/30 37% poor moderate E during sidewalk replacement Crown raising 439 X 27.0 27.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/16 70/70 70% good good X pruning was 45% overall condition "poor". performed to limb up this tree. Condition estimated Tree currently in 28% overall 440 X 18.7 18.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 35/35 35% poor very poor W W 1 prior to spring condition (Very Poor). Tree leafout. suggested by WLCA to be removed. 34 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a- }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ E O - O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� WWM1 �0 Q � •C� > V Q �0 �c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = v) _ � .� .� .� `. `. .� `. Roots severed Tree currently in 28% overall 441 X 21 .2 21 .2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/45 50/50 50% fair moderate 1 during sidewalk condition (Very Poor). Tree replacement suggested by WLCA to be removed. Roots severed during sidewalk Tree appears to be in decline. 442 31 .2 31 .2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/45 60/45 53% fair moderate W S replacement . Will Current overall condition is 45% need endweight (Poor). reduction pruning. 443 X 41 .0 41 .0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/20 75/60 68% fair good 5 Cable installation recommended. 45% overall condition "poor' . 444 21 .5 21 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 70/50 60% fair moderate W 45 X 15.4 g3 5.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus dhdei 60/18 `` 50/50 50% fair moderate N X Removed as of August 2019. f 446 X 21 .1 21 .1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/15 75/75 75% good good Removed as of August 2019. a :: 447 X 17.5 17.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/20 55/50 52% fair poor to mod N Removed as of August 2019. M M a a MW 448 X 15.7 15.7 coast redwood Sequoia=sempervirens 0/10 60/60 60% fair moderate E a Tree was limbed up. Removed as of August 2019. b.< u 8: 449 X 16.5 16.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/10 60/60 60% fair moderate E Tree was limbed up. Removed as of August 2019. 450 X 15.5 15.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/10 60/50 55% fair moderate E Tree was limbed up. 50% overall condition "fair' . 451 X 19.6 19.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 70/55 60% fair good W Current condition rating is 452 X 21 .5 21 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 50/35 40% poor poor to mod W 0 to 2 roughly the same as noted in previous years. 453 X X 15.0 15.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/10 10/10 10% very very poor poor 35 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r E 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � E O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q to to L N > �_ •� = C _ E Q O C V ' o w — � O L. � � �' � N 0 � 0 � }' � 0. r � C� �' E +; ° � O = }; �-' aL+ - O E O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = U) = � .� `. `. .� `. Current condition rating is 454 X 29.4 29.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/35 50/40 47% poor poor to mod 12 Roots damaged. roughly the same as previously noted in past years. 455 17.7 17.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/18 30/35 33% poor poor E Roots damaged. 456 X 22.3 22.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/20 40/35 37% poor poor W W 15 Same condition rating as noted in prior years. May be declining in condition. 457 X 28.5 28.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/35 50/60 55% fair moderate W Current condition is roughly 45% (Poor). various Bark sluffing off. Same condition rating as noted 458 X 25.1 25.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/35 30/40 35% poor poor to mod elevations Phloem/bark in prior years. disorder. 459 X 31 .9 31 .9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 75/45 60/60 60% fair moderate Roots damaged. 460 31 .8 31 .8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/45 60/55 59% fair moderate Roots damaged. Tree declining. Current overall 461 25.5 25.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/40 50/50 50% fair poor to mod 15 condition is roughly 35% (Poor). Extensive twig dieback apparent. Tree declining. Current overall condition is roughly 28% (Very 462 X X 15.3 15.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/15 50/40 45% poor moderate 8 Poor). Tissue necrosis and bark inclusion at fork noted. Trees in very poor condition are typically suggested to be removed. Tree appears to be in decline 463 21 .0 21 .0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/45 75/60 70% good good W Roots damaged. due to chronic drought conditions. Current overall condition roughly 55% (Fair). Tree appears to be in decline 464 X 34.1 34.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 65/45 48% poor moderate E 0 to 5 due to chronic drought conditions. Current overall condition roughly 40% (Poor). Tree is currently in same 465 22.8 22.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 55/45 50% fair moderate W 16 Roots damaged. condition as noted in previous years. Tree appears to be in decline 466 29.3 29.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/30 60/45 50% fair mod to good E 9 due to chronic drought conditions. Current overall condition roughly 40% (Poor). 36 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri E Q O to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r E 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� -W 'a }, }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � E O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q to to L N M i > �_ •� = C _ E Q O C V ' o w — � O L. � � �' � N 0 � 0 � }' � 0. r � C� �' E +; ° � O = }; �-' aL+ - O i �+ E O — O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 �c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL 4) �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = cn = � .� `. `. .� `. Tree declining. Current overall condition is roughly 28% (Very 467 X 25.6 25.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 65/45 50/30 37% poor moderate GR 3 to 10 Poor). Tissue necrosis and bark inclusion at fork noted. Trees in very poor condition are typically suggested to be removed. Tree declining with apparent extensive twig dieback. Current overall condition is roughly 20% 468 X 24.6 24.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/30 40/40 40% poor poor Roots damaged. (Very Poor). Tissue necrosis and bark inclusion at fork noted. Trees in very poor condition are typically suggested to be removed. Tree is currently in same 469 25.2 25.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 40/30 38% poor poor W S GR 12 Roots damaged. condition as noted in previous years. Appears to be experiencing 470 27.7 27.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/35 45/35 40% poor poor normal Fall leaf senescence (leaf drop). Appears to be experiencing 471 14.9 14.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/15 45/45 45% poor poor W W normal Fall leaf senescence (leaf drop). Appears to be experiencing 472 16.4 16.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/20 45/45 45% poor poor E normal Fall leaf senescence (leaf drop). 9 and 10 (not Tree appears to be somewhat 473 31 .5 31 .5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/45 75/65 68% fair good verified) Roots damaged declining. Current overall condition is roughly 57% (Fair). Tree appears to be somewhat 474 25.3 25.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/30 75/60 65% fair good E GR declining. Current overall condition is roughly 59% (Fair). Tree is declining, with an estimated 43% overall condition 475 28.7 28.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 60/45 70/65 68% fair moderate Roots damaged. rating (Poor). Leaf fall appears to be a combo of normal leaf fall plus twig and branch dieback. 476 X 15.2 15.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/25 35/40 38% poor poor to mod E 477 X X 13.9 13.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/20 20/20 20% very very poor poor 37 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� . `. `. . `. 478 X X 16.9 16.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 40/15 50/50 50% fair poor 20% overall condition "very poor". 479 X X 22.1 22.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/20 0/0 0% dead 0% (Dead). 480 X 13.1 13.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/18 45/45 45% poor poor SE 481 X 20.0 20.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 45/45 45% poor poor W 482 X 9.8 9.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/10 30/20 25% very poor W poor 483 X 12.7 12.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/16 50/40 50% fair moderate N GR 484 X 15.9 15.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/18 60/50 55% fair moderate 485 X 13.7 13.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 55/55 55% fair moderate E 486 X 22.3 22.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/18 70/70 70% good moderate 68% overall condition "fair' . 487 X 21 .9 21 .9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/18 70/70 70% good moderate 70% overall condition "good' . 488 X 12.4 12.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/16 50/35 40% poor moderate N 0 to 3 489 X 8.9 8.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 55/35 45% poor moderate 490 X 14.3 14.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/35 55/45 47% poor poor to mod W W 38 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL �H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 491 X X 9.3 9.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 20/12 40/20 27% very poor W W 8 poor 492 X 9.1 9.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/18 50/35 40% poor poor to mod E 493 X 12.4 12.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/18 45/30 35% poor poor to mod W W 494 X 13.8 13.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/30 40/40 40% poor poor 495 X X 13.0 13.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/16 26/20 22% very poor W W 0 to 8 poor 496 X X 7.9 7.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 25/12 30/20 25% very poor E poor 497 X X 10.2 10.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 25/30 29% very poor W W poor 498 X 11 .8 11 .8 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 20/20 50/40 44% poor poor N 5 Fireblight infection. 499 X X 4.0 4.0 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 9/6 0/0 0% dead 500 X X 21 .4 21 .4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/15 0/0 0% dead 0% Dead. 501 X X 19.0 19.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/15 15/15 15% very very poor X Steep slope. 0% Dead. poor 502 X X 24.4 24.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/12 0/0 0% dead X 0% Dead. 503 X 6.7 6.7 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 13/14 40/40 40% poor poor S 5 39 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a- }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + O - O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. 11 `. 504 X 9.9 9.0 18.9 oak species Quercus sp. 35/30 80/50 60% fair good S GR Steep slope 505 X 32.3 32.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/35 70/70 70% good moderate X Steep slope 70% overall condition "good' . 506 X 10.0 10.0 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 25/15 40/40 40% poor poor E E X Fireblight infection. 507 X X 7.6 7.6 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 18/15 20/20 20% very very poor N N X Fireblight infection. poor 508 X 10.9 10.9 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 25/25 40/30 35% poor poor N N X Fireblight infection. 509 X X 7.2 6.9 5.5 19.6 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 25/15 15/15 15% very very poor N X poor 510 X 28.0 28.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/25 80/80 80% good good X 70% overall condition "good' . Roots damaged on 511 X 14.4 14.4 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 20/25 40/50 44% poor poor X grade. Fireblight 55% overall condition "fair'. infection. 512 X 6.0 6.0 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 15/8 50/30 37% poor moderate X X 30% overall condition "poor' . 513 X 5.6 5.6 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 18/10 40/40 40% poor poor E X 514 X 4.4 4.4 southern magnolia Magnolia grandiflora 18/6 40/40 40% poor poor E X 515 X X 10.5 10.5 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 25/20 30/30 30% poor poor E E X Fireblight infection. 20% overall condition "very poor". 516 X X 10.6 10.6 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamii 25/20 30/40 35% poor poor E E X Fireblight infection. 20% overall condition "very poor". 40 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to E O = p �C M 'V O o 'tl) O O O -W O •� a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � E O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q to to L N > �_ •� = C _ E Q O C V ' o w — � O L. � � �' � N 0 � 0 � }' � 0. r � V �' E � ° � O = }; }' aL,, - O i + E O — O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 �c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL 4) �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = cn = W .� `. `. .� `. 517 X X 6.5 6.5 southern magnolia Pyrus kawakamii 13/7 40/30 30% poor poor to mod E 4 to 7 15% overall condition "very poor". Out of leaf. Overall 518 X 23.2 23.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 55/60 58% fair poor to mod W W condition verify in spring after leafout. 519 X 7.6 7.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 40/10 0/0 0% DEAD n/a 520 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE 521 X X 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 55/18 30/25 28% very poor W poor 522 X 14.3 14.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/18 10/10 10% Very very poor W 5 Poor A 523 TREE REMOVED FROM >R LANDSCAPE. 524 10.6 10.6 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 40/30 75/75 75% good good E X 525 17.6 17.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 35/35 35% poor poor W W 526 6.7 6.7 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 18/12 65/50 55% fair moderate E X 527 8.2 8.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 20/15 70/40 55% fair good S S 528 11 .1 11 .1 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 25/35 70/60 66% fair moderate X 529 12.7 12.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 45/45 45% poor poor to mod W W 41 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri E Q O to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� -W 'a }, }, � -W3 � r- � WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a 9 a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ E O — O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. 11 `. 530 10.4 10.4 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 30/30 75/65 73% good moderate S X 531 9.2 9.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/18 50/40 45% poor W S 532 12.3 12.3 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 50/40 65/70 70% good moderate SE X 533 13.2 13.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/30 60/60 60% fair moderate 534 10.2 10.2 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 40/20 70/60 70% good good E X 535 20.6 20.6 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/35 60/50 55% fair good 536 X 12.1 12.1 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 20/20 20% very very poor poor 537 13.1 13.1 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 35/35 60/55 60% fair moderate E X 538 19.9 19.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/35 50/45 50% fair poor to mod 539 12.7 12.7 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 25/30 75/65 70% good good E E X 540 21 .9 21 .9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/45 65/55 60% fair moderate GR 541 12.5 12.5 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 30/30 60/50 55% fair moderate X 542 13.7 13.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 50150 50% fair moderate W W 42 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � CD U O O O ca ca e � N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i + O — O H i i ca '++ w '�+/+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L `� L N_ — Q `� 'M� M�M �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L d' a i Q O '4) M 0 M � > LL J > 0 0 � r � = U) Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL 0! �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. 11 `. 543 15.2 15.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/25 55/30 34% poor moderate S GR 5 544 14.1 14.1 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 40/35 70/60 67% fair moderate E E X 545 17.4 17.4 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/30 75/55 64% fair good W Tight forks at 8 feet. 546 11 .2 11 .2 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 30/35 70/60 66% fair moderate E E X 547 X 12.5 12.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 40/20 25/25 25% very very poor W W GR poor 548 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 549 16.3 16.3 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/30 65/55 61% fair moderate W 550 17.5 17.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/30 75/65 70% good good W 551 u TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 552 11 .2 11 .2 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 25/25 60/60 60% fair moderate N N X 553 14.2 14.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/20 75/65 70% good good W W Tree out of leaf. ID 554 4.0 4.0 elm species Ulmus sp. 20/10 75/75 75% good good not verified at time of writing. 555 X 9.8 9.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 20115 10/10 10% very very poor 0 to 10 poor 43 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r E 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn E � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a 9 a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i G� � O � E O W ° � O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ s «i O M H c.� 1 v Q to to L N > �_ •� = C _ E Q O C V ' o w — � O L. � � �' � N 0 � 0 � }' � 0. r � C� �' E +; ° � O = }; �-' aL+ - O i + E O — O H ca L r i M '++ ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �0 �c//) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL 4) �H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- Qom t� 0 `. E cn a = cn = W .� `. `. .� `. 556 16.8 16.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/30 55/60 59% fair moderate 0 to 1 Vehicle impact scar. 557 12.9 12.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 35/35 35% poor poor W W 558 13.8 13.8 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 35/35 75/70 73% good good N N X 559 15.9 15.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 50/25 55/50 54% fair poor to mod W 560 11 .5 11 .5 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 30/30 65/70 68% fair moderate E X 561 13.7 13.7 Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia 30/30 70/50 60% fair good N X 562 13.8 13.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/30 40/35 38% poor poor N X 563 TREE REMOVED FROM F LANDSCAPE. 564 X 14.8 14.8 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 35/25 25/20 23% very very poor W W poor a 565 TREE REMOVED FROM x. LANDSCAPE. 566 X 17.5 17.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/35 40/40 40% poor moderate W W 567 X 16.2 16.2 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/15 25/25 25% very very poor poor 568 18.0 18.0 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 45/35 75/65 70% good good W 44 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a- }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o - � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow - O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O - O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ - Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 569 13.5 13.5 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 30/25 70/65 68% fair good W 570 12.7 12.7 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdei 18/10 50/30 40% poor moderate W W X 571 22.7 22.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/20 60/60 60% fair moderate X 50% overall condition "fair' . 572 31 .6 31 .6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/20 60/45 55% fair moderate 25 X 60% overall condition "fair' . 573 16.5 16.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 60/50 53% fair moderate X 37% overall condition "poor' . 574 25.6 25.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/15 60/60 60% fair moderate X 48% overall condition "poor' . 575 12.0 12.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/10 60/40 47% poor moderate X 35% overall condition "poor' . 576 32.1 13.4 12.2 57.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/25 70/70 70% good poor X 55% overall condition "fair' . 577 27.6 27.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 40/30 35% poor poor various X 45% overall condition "poor' elevations . 578 17.1 17.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/12 60/60 60% fair moderate X 50% overall condition "fair' . 579 17.7 17.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/12 65/65 65% fair moderate X 40% overall condition "poor' . 580 31 .5 9.0 40.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/20 75/75 75% good moderate X 55% overall condition "fair' . 581 21 .5 10.5 32.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/15 60/60 60% fair moderate X 45% overall condition "poor' . 45 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a 9 a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL 0- H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = v) _ � .� . . `. `. . `. 582 31 .7 31 .7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/25 80/80 80% good good X 60% overall condition "fair". 583 X 8.3 8.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/6 20/20 20% very very poor X 20% overall condition "very poor poor". 584 26.9 26.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/20 65/65 65% fair moderate X 60% overall condition "fair' . 585 15.9 7.3 23.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 65/65 65% fair moderate X 50% overall condition "fair' . 586 25.3 25.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/13 65/65 65% fair moderate X 45% overall condition "poor' . 587 19.9 19.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/14 65/65 65% fair moderate X 52% overall condition "fair' . 588 21 .0 21 .0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/12 60/60 60% fair moderate X 47% overall condition "poor' . 589 23.3 23.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/12 65/65 65% fair moderate X 62% overall condition "fair' . 590 25.5 5.0 30.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/10 30/40 35% poor poor X 35% overall condition "poor' . 591 21 .2 21 .2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/10 50/40 45% poor poor X 50% overall condition "fair' . 592 X 25.0 25.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/8 25/35 28p very very poor X 35% overall condition "poor'. poor 593 14.4 14.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 40/10 30/30 30% poor poor to mod S 0 to 5 X 30% overall condition "poor'. 594 18.1 18.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/13 65/55 50% fair moderate X 45% overall condition "poor'. 46 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L + a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c M + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + Hai m � M0 c� 'a— }, � -W3 � r- WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L t) Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O O O ca ca 1 e N t, O �_ CD U M «i O M H c.� 1 v Q 0. rto to L N i �+ O — O H ca L i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L ``� L N_ — Q ``� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) M 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � r � _ � Z 0 � W W LL � Z 0 Z H F- 0 Q � awLL a }, H H H H H Qom t� 0 `. � cn a = c) = W .� .� .� `. `. 11 `. 595 19.2 19.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 25/15 40/25 30% poor moderate 25 (apical X 30% overall condition "poor". meristem) 596 12.8 12.8 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/8 50/40 45% poor poor to mod S X 35% overall condition "poor' . 597 X 12.7 8.3 21 .0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/10 0/0 0% dead dead 1 X 0% (Dead) Shear crack 598 X 19.5 19.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/6 30/10 20% very very poor X through the 20% overall condition "very poor mainstem poor". longitudinally. 599 27.0 27.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/25 65/65 65% fair moderate X 60% overall condition "fair' . Canker developing 600 18.8 18.8 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/8 50/40 45% poor poor W X on trunk at 5 feet 35% overall condition "poor'. elevation. 601 25.5 25.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/14 40/40 40% poor poor X 30% overall condition "poor' . 602 13.7 7.7 21 .4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 40/9 40/30 35% poor BRC X 30% overall condition "poor'. 603 X 17.3 17.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/15 25/25 25% very very poor X 25% overall condition "very poor poor". 604 X 16.7 16.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/12 25/25 25% very very poor W X 25% overall condition "very poor poor". 605 X 6.6 6.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/7 25/25 25% very very poor X 0% (Dead) poor 25% very Codominant 25% overall condition "very 606 X 26.4 26.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/18 20/30 poor poor X mainstem fork at 20 poor". feet. 607 X 15.4 15.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 55/10 15/20 17% very very poor X 15% overall condition "very poor poor". 47 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 i O L0 L N _ O L �+ a. ri Q O Z to a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N t� - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ o o °' cn ^ >, L a 'N ._ Ratings & NOTES 2017 om O � � cn � � .� ^ .� � � + I— a� m � M0 c� 'a }, }, � _W3 � r_ WLCA Notes from 0 jR c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L U Z c Z C '> M L a O •- N a g � � a� � •L � (Genus, species) � cn o � � � > O C� � > ca ca .� a� � � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r � c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw _ U � � ++ � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ L. � � J 'i= G� � O � � O W ° � ow — O ° O ca ca 1 N t, O �_ CD Ur s «i O ca H v 1 v Q 0. rto to L N O — O H ca i i ca '++ w ',+y+ >_ G1 ,,O^^ L `� L N_ — Q `� 'MM� ��M1 �O/ Q •C� > V Q �O/ mac ) 0 L O 0 O 'M i Q L L L L L L �' a i Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � I- � _ � Z I0 � W W LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL �I— F_ 0 Q DG a w LL 0- H H H H H H Q 0 � t� 0 `. � cn a = U) = W .� .� .� `. `. .� `. 608 X 22.4 22.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/14 30/30 30% poor poor W X 27% overall condition "very poor". 609 27.1 27.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/18 35/35 35% poor poor X 30% overall condition "poor' . 610 X 13.0 13.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 30/8 40/20 28% very poor to mod X 25% overall condition "very poor poor". 75% overall condition "good' . Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, Cankers on trunk at which removed all of the 611 39.4 39.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/15 70/70 70% good good X 6 feet. westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced below the condition rating noted above. 0% (Dead) Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, which removed all of the westward facin scaffold X ' �0 "8.0 coast redwood ' Sequoia sempervirens 25/4 ' 0/0 0% dead dead X g limbs. REMOVED AS OF OCTOBER 2018. 0 overa condition air . Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 613 26.5 26.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/18 75/75 75% good good X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced himinw thp rnnrfifinn ratin 0 overall condition air . Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 614 32.3 32.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/15 70/70 70% good mod to good X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the rnnrlitinn ratinn 0 overall condition Wpoor. Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 615 15.4 15.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/10 50/50 50% fair poor X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced 0 overall condition poor . Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 616 24.4 24.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/11 55/50 53% fair mod X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the r_nnrlitinn ratinn 0 overall condition "poor". Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 617 10.1 10.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 25/9 65/45 55% fair mod X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the rnnrlitinn ratinn 0 overall condition "fair". Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 618 26.7 26.7 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/18 55/60 58% fair poor to mod X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the rnnrlitinn ratinn 0 overall condition "poor". Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 619 12.5 12.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 45/10 50/40 50% fair moderate X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the r_nnrlitinn ratinn 48 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 05/15/2020 L C� L0 L N O L �+ a. rL � � Q O � N a E O ,c s + N cn > M =' ° r 0 o > N 0 - O O a L Updated Overall Condition > •- N Scientific Name C� ^ = c m a ^ O O °' ^ >, L - 'N .- % Ratings & NOTES 2017 o m o cn .� ^ .� + I— a� m c� N c� }, cc }, 3 WLCA Notes from 0o � � c� ca d d d d d � � o Common Name ca L UZ cZ C '> M La O •- N a 9 a� •L (Genus, species) cn o M > O C� > ca ca .� ai � }. Spring n 2015 Survey rve M o H N `. °�' t� •_ �> c�a otf o t� o a' o w m o o W w ° •_ L C� °' m o '� x p 9 Y ONWARD ca > ♦, m r � c� ca � � o — � a _ � w pw 2 � L U � � � � N M � � CO G� � G� N � � S � \ � � J 'i= G� � O � � O W ° � O ° O ca ca 1 1 N t, O �_ r s «i O ca H v 1 v Q to to L > �_ •� = C _ _ Q O C V ' � = O L. �' N 0 0 }' Q r V �' ° O = }; }' aL,, - O L �+ E O — O I— ca L 'a 0 L ca '++ �/+ > G� ,,O^^ L `� L c/� — O `� '� °/ G� O •C� > V O �0 �N/ 0 L O 0 O '(� L Q L L L L L L �' a L Q O '4) Q 0 M O > LL J > 0 0 � I- � _ � Z I0 � W e LL � Z 0 G � � Z LL LL Cn I— � c� Q o� a w � a � H I— � I— I— I— a o � t� O `. � cn a = v) _ � �. .� .� .� .� .� _ .� `. 0 overall condition poor". Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 620 15.3 15.3 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/10 50/40 50% fair moderate X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the r_nnrlitinn ratinn 0 overall condition air . Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 621 12.6 12.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 45/11 60/50 55% fair moderate X which removed all of the westward facing scaffold limbs. Health and structural ratings are now significantly reduced hpinw the rnnrlitinn ratinn 622 23.4 23.4 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/15 50/50 50% fair poor X 55% overall condition "fair' . 623 25.1 25.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/15 50/50 50% fair poor X 57% overall condition "fair' . 624 15.9 15.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 70/12 50/40 49% poor poor X 50% overall condition "fair' . 625 19.7 6.4 26.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/10 50/50 50% fair poor X 50% overall condition "fair' . 626 19.6 19.6 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 60/10 60/50 55% fair poor to mod X 50% overall condition "fair' . 627 22.9 22.9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 75/12 60/50 53% fair poor X 60% overall condition "fair' . / o I recommend tree be removed 628 X 1 .1 14.1 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 45/8 20/30 very very poor X at this time. October 2018 poor (WLCA). SHPCO will remove. 629 X 11 .9 11 .9 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 45/7 10/10 10% very very poor X 0% (Dead). TREE REMOVED AS poor OF OCTOBER 2018. 630 X 12.0 12.0 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 35/10 35/35 35% poor poor X 25% overall condition "very poor". 631 X 16.2 16.2 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 45/15 20/20 20% very very poor 25 X 20% overall condition "very poor poor". 632 15.5 15.5 coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 50/18 40/30 35% poor poor to mod 30 X 30% overall condition "poor' . 49 of 95